Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gift  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2013 


http://archive.org/details/newyorkcustomhouOOunse 


r 


L 


27th  Congress, 

2d  Session. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Ho,  op  Rets. 


NEW  YORK  CUSTOM-HOUSE. 


April  28,  1842. 
Read,  and  laid  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  Stanly,  from  the  Committee  on  Public  Expenditures,  submitted  the 

following 

. REPORT : 

The  Committee  on  Public  Expenditures  respectfully  submit  to  the 
House  a  report  made  by  the  honorable  George  Poindexter  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Mr.  Poindexter  toas  one  of  the  commis- 
sioners appointed  by  the  President,  on  the  10th  of  May,  1S41,  to  ex- 
amine into  the  affairs  of  the  custom-house  in  the  city  of  New  York. 

The  committee,  being  apprized  that  the  expenditures  at  the  custom-house 
in  the  city  of  New  York  had  increased  very  greatly  for  several  years  past, 
felt  bound  to  become  acquainted  with  the  nature  and  character  of  these 
expenditures,  that  the  guilty  might  be  exposed  and  punished,  and  like 
abuses  corrected  for  the  future.  As,  however,  the  time  allowed  the  com- 
mittee for  such  an  investigation  was  not  sufficient  to  enable  them  to 
attempt  it,  with  any  probability  of  success,  unless  they  had  abandoned 
the  sittings  of  the  House;  and,  as  they  had  been  informed  of  the  nature 
of  the  duties  of  the  commissioners,  they  concluded  it  would  be  more  satis- 
factory to  the  House  to  await  the  report  of  the  commissioners.  On  the 
9th  day  of  February  last,  the  House  of  Representatives  adopted  a  reso- 
lution, reported  from  the  Committee  on  Public  Expenditures,  requesting  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  send  a  copy  of  the  reports  of  the  commissioners. 
No  answer  to  that  resolution  has  yet  been  received.  Some  days  since,  the 
committee  called  on  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  know  when  they 
would  receive  an  answer  to  the  resolution  referred  to,  and  whether  the 
report  made  since  the  date  of  that  resolution  would  be  sent.  Some  days 
elapsed,  and  no  answer  came ;  another  letter  was  addressed  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  ;  and  to  this,  after  waiting  another  day,  the  committee 
received  no  answer. 

The  committee,  knowing  the  general  desire  to  be  made  acquainted  with 
the  proceedings  of  the  commissioners,  and  believing  that  it  was  due  not 
only  to  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  to  the  American  people,  that 
abuses  should  be  exposed,  and  feeling  anxious  that  measures  might,  be  taken 
during  the  present  session  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  the  degrading  enor- 
mities practised  at  the  New  York  custom-house,  determined  to  call  on  Mr. 
Poindexter,  one  of  the  commissioners,  and  to  submit  the  result  of  his  labors 
to  the  consideration  of  the  House. 


2 


Hep.  No.  669. 


This  report  is  herewith  submitted.  The  committee  earnestly  and  re- 
spectfully invite  the  attention  of  the  House  to  its  details.  It  is  believed  that 
the  wickedness  of  public  officers  here  exposed  is  unparalleled  in  the  histo- 
ry of  any  civilized  Government ;  and  public  interest,  the  interest  of  the  in- 
jured and  unjustly  oppressed  citizens,  and,  above  all,  public  honor,  irnperi- 
ously  demand  a  remedy  at  the  hands  of  the  Representatives  of  the  people. 


REPORT 

OF 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER, 

CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  COMMISSIONERS  APPOINTED  TO  INVESTIGATE  THE 
AFFAIRS  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  CUSTOM-HOUSE,  PAST  AND  PRESENT, 

CONCLUDED  IN   APRIL,  1842, 

TWCtrrDING  THE 

EVIDENCE  TAKEN  BY  THE  TWO  BOARDS  OF  COMMISSIONERS, 

IX 

THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


4 


Rep.  No.  669. 


REPORT. 


Commissioners'  Office,   1841. 

The  undersigned,  one  of  the  commissioners  appointed  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  under  the  orders  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  by 
commission  bearing  date  10th  day  of  May,  1841,  having  performed  the 
duties  required  of  him,  in  connexion  with  Messrs.  Kelley  and  Stewart,  the 
other  commissioners,  so  far  as  the  same  relates  to  the  examination  and  in- 
vestigation into  the  affairs  of  the  custom-house  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
has  the  honor  to  submit  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  the  following 
report,  being  a  condensed  view  of  the  evidence  taken  before  the  commis- 
sioners, so  far  as  the  same  may  be  deemed  important  to  the  future  action  of 
Congress,  or  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  the  various  subjects  to 
which  it  relates: 

The  undersigned  has  examined  and  considered  a  report  on  the  evidence 
and  investigations  of  the  commissioners,  taken  in  the  city  of  New  York,  pre- 
pared and  offered  for  his  signature,  by  Alfred  Kelley,  Esq.,  one  of  the  com- 
missioners, from  which  report  the  undersigned,  after  mature  deliberation, 
deems  it  proper  to  withhold  his  assent  and  signature  ;  because  said  report 
does  not,  in  the  opinion  of  the  undersigned,  contain  a  fair  and  impartial 
representation  of  the  testimony  given,  or  the  most  material  parts  thereof,  on 
the  subjects  which  the  undersigned  regards  as  involving  the  most  important 
acts  of  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  touching  his  powers  and  du- 
ties, and  the  great  interests  of  commerce  placed  by  the  laws  under  his 
supervision. 

The  undersigned  deems  it  proper,  however,  to  state,  that  there  are  por- 
tions of  said  report  to  which  he  is  not  disposed  to  object ;  but,  in  connection 
with  oiher  parts  of  the  same  document,  it  would  be  difficult  to  discriminate 
between  the  parts  to  which  his  assent  might  be  given  and  the  objectionable 
portions  of  the  report. 

The  undersigned  has  therefore  deemed  it  proper  and  due,  as  well  to 
himself  as  to  the  Government,  under  whose  appointment  he  acted,  to  offer 
his  own  views  of  the  testimony  herewith  reported,  and  of  the  considerations 
resulting  from  that  testimony,  without  intending,  in  any  manner,  to  impugn 
the  motives  or  judgment  of  the  other  commissioners,  who  may  have  taken 
different  views  of  the  subjects  brought  before  them,  and  of  the  evidence 
taken  and  recorded  jointly  by  the  commissioners. 

The  first  branch  of  inquiry  to  which  the  attention  of  the  commissioners 
was  drawn  by  their  commission  is  the  abstraction  and  misapplication  of 
the  public  money  receivable  by  the  collector  or  other  officers  of  the  cus- 
toms, which  does  not  appear  on  their  accounts  transmitted  to  the  Treasury 
Department. 

The  testimony  taken  on  these  subjects  may  be  referred  to  in  general 
terms,  as  the  same  is  entirely  too  voluminous  to  be  incorporated  in  this 
report ;  but  the  more  prominent,  points  to  which  the  undersigned  desires 


Rep.  No.  669. 


5 


to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  are  the  following : 
First.  The  expenditures  foiling  under  the  head  of  cartage  and  labor. 
Second.  Stationery  and  printing,  storage,  and  other  incidental  expenses  of 
the  custom-house,  in  all  its  departments.  Third.  Light-house  expenses, 
revenue  cutters,  and  the  expenditures  incurred  at  the  quarantine  ground 
below  the  city  of  New  York. 

The  manner  of  keeping  the  various  accounts  of  the  custom-house,  and  of 
the  moneys  received  and  paid  over  to  the  collector,  through  the  cashier  or 
his  assistant,  and  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  so  as  to  secure 
a  strict  accountability  of  each  officer,  respectively,  to  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment, will  be  the  subject  of  auother  branch  of  this  report. 

First,  as  to  cartage  and  labor.  The  undersigned,  on  his  arrival  in  the 
city  of  New  York,  and  at  the  commencement  of  the  investigations  which 
he  was  charged  to  make,  found  all  the  arrangements  of  the  custom-house, 
and  most  of  the  officers  thereof,  precisely  in  the  condition  in  which  they 
had  been  left  by  Jesse  Hoyt,  on  his  removal  from  that  office  ;  and  so  they 
continued  for  several  months  after  the  labors  of  the  commissioners  began. 
It  will  therefore  be  only  necessary  to  look  into  the  system  adopted  by 
Hoyt,  to  show  its  real  character  under  the  new  collector,  until  a  n  form 
was  produced,  to  some  extent,  by  the  investigations  of  the  commissioners. 
It  will  be  seen  that  the  expenditure  of  money,  by  Jesse  Hoyt,  for  cartage 
and  labor,  was  not  only  enormous  in  amount,  but  applied,  as  the  under- 
signed believes,  to  corrupt  purposes,  and  paid  out  by  the  order  of  the  col- 
lector to  the  accounting  officer  of  the  custom-house,  without  any  sufficient 
voucher  to  show  the  actual  amount  of  labor  performed,  or  of  the  cartage 
for  which  payment  was  demanded  and  made  at  the  cashier's  office.  The 
26th  answer  of  John  A.  Fleming,  auditor  of  the  custom-house,  in  his  testi- 
mony, will  show  the  character  and  description  of  all  the  vouchers  on  which 
these  payments  have  been  made.  They  contain  but  two  lines,  without  any 
specification  whatever : 

"  Paid  for  cartage. 
Do.  for  labor." 

Which  in  all  cases  the  auditor,  under  the  the  direction  of  the  collector,  ad- 
mitted as  a  sufficient  voucher  to  authorize  the  payment  of  any  amount 
carried  out  by  the  storekeeper,  George  A.  Wasson,  whose  receipt  was 
taken  for  the  same,  under  which  it  was  charged  to  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States,  and  approved  by  the  Department  at  Washington.  No  evi- 
dence was  required  from  the  storekeeper,  of  any  description,  either  written 
or  otherwise,  of  the  sums  paid  by  him  for  cartage  or  labor,  to  whom  paid, 
at  what  time,  or  at  what  rates,  but  every  thing  connected  with  the  transaction 
was  taken  for  granted,  on  the  mere  exhibition  of  the  vague  account,  as 
above  stated;  and  the  amount  of  money  from  time  to  time  called  for  by  the 
storekeeper  was,  hy  order  of  the  collector  and  the  sanction  of  the  auditor, 
(an  officer  dependent  on  the  collector,)  paid  over  to  George  A.  Wasson,  the 
principal  storekeeper  of  the  appraiser's  store  in  Nassau  street.  It  appears, 
from  the  testimony  of  many  witnesses  examined  on  this  subject,  that,  after 
Mr.  Hoyt  became  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  there  were  two  privi- 
leged carts  employed  in  transferring  goods  ordered  to  the  public  store  in 
Nassau  street  for  examination,  either  from  ships  or  other  public  stores,  and 
that  all  other  carts  were  excluded  from  participating  in  the  transfer  of  such 
goods,  notwithstanding  great  inconvenience  and  delays  were  experienced 
by  the  want  of  a  sufficient  number  of  carts  to  perform  the  service  required 


6 


Rep.  No.  669. 


for  the  proper  despatch  of  the  business  in  the  transfer  and  examination  of 
goods  ordered  to  that  store  by  the  collector.  One  of  these  carts  so  privi- 
leged, it  is  in  evidence,  was  the  property  of  George  A.  Wasson,  the  pub- 
lic storekeeper ;  and  the  other,  although  entered  in  the  name  of  George 
Shourt,  it  may  well  be  doubted  whether,  by  a  secret  arrangement,  some  of- 
ficer in  or  out  of  the  custom-house  did  not  receive  a  proportion  of  the 
profits.  The  system  adopted  by  the  public  storekeeper,  who  was  the  owner 
of  one  of  these  carts,  for  estimating  the  charge  on  each  package  transferred 
to  said  public  store  for  examination,  was  in  substance  as  follows:  On  each 
package  from  31i  to  50  cents,  according  to  distance  ;  and  if,  at  one  load,  the 
cart  should  bring  from  four  to  eight  packages,  the  full  price  of  a  load  was 
charged  on  each  package  ordered ;  so  that,  while  the  merchant  could  pro- 
cure carts  to  transfer  goods  an  equal  distance  for  from  3H  to  50  cents  per 
load,  the  Government  was  charged  by  these  privileged  carts,  owned  in 
whole  or  in  part  by  custom-house  officers,  sometimes  at  the  rate  of  four 
full  loads,  and  sometimes  extending  to  the  number  of  eight  loads,  as  ap- 
pears by  the  testimony  ;  and  thus  the  labor  which  other  carts  would  per- 
form for  fifty  cents,  at  the  highest,  was  charged  to  the  Government  at  rates 
extending  from  two  dollars  per  load  to  four  or  even  five  dollars  per  load. 
This  system  of  charging  will  account  for  the  enormous  sums  paid  to  George 
A.  Wasson  for  cartage  and  labor,  without  any  sufficient  voucher  to  justify 
it,  and  which  amounted,  according  to  the  statement  furnished  by  the  auditor, 
to  the  sum  of  $94,430  92,  as  follows  : 


Statement  of  moneys  paid  at  the  custom-house,  New  York,  for  cartage  and 
labor  at  the  appraiser's  store,  in  the  years  1S3S,  1S39,  and  1840,  viz  : 


Years. 

Cartage. 

Labor. 

Total. 

In  1S38 
In  1S39 
In  1S40 

§10,168  S3 
1S,326  26 
13,193  35 

$13,260  20 
21,579  78 
17,902  50 

$23,429  03 
39,906  04 
30^095  85 

94,430  92 

Custom  House,  New  York,  May  31,  1S41. 


It  may  be  proper,  if  not  instructive,  to  take  some  notice  of  this  man, 
George  A.  Wasson,  whom  we  found  occupying  the  same  position  under 
Mr.  Curtis  which  he  had  previously  held  under  Jesse  Hoyt,  the  late  col- 
lector. He  is  the  same  individual  who,  in  addition  to  his  office  of  store- 
keeper, was  made  a  deputy  collector  by  Hoyt ;  and  without  performing  any 
additional  duty,  he  received  from  the  custom-house  the  sum  of  fifteen 
hundred  dollars  per  annum,  in  addition  to  his  other  salary  as  storekeeper. 
He  was  employed  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  with  other  subordinate  officers,  to  assist 
in  appraising  goods,  and  pass  them  or  certify  them  for  seizure,  without  re- 
gard to  the  opinion  of  the  regular  appraisers.  He  was  made  use  of  to  go 
abroad  to  other  cities,  and  seize  goods  which  had  regularly  passed  the  cus- 
tom-house in  New  York;  and,  in  short,  was  a  sort  of  factotum  of  Mr. 
Hoyt,  and,  in  the  seizure  and  condemnation  of  goods,  was  one  of  his 


Hep.  No.  669. 


7 


standing  witnesses  in  court,  both  in  New  York  and  elsewhere.  He  is  the 
same  person  of  whom  Mr.  Samuel  Lawrence  (of  the  house  of  Lawrence, 
Stone,  &  Lawrence)  says,  in  his  evidence,  "that  he  believes  him  to  be 
competent,  faithful,  and  upright,  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  and  that 
he  shall  continue  of  that  opinion  until  he  is  proved  otherwise."  The  pur- 
poses to  which  the  services,  in  and  out  of  the  custom-house,  of  this  indi- 
vidual, George  A.  Wasson,  were  applied,  under  the  orders  and  instructions 
of  Jesse  Hoyt,  will  sufficiently  explain  the  grounds  on  which  Mr.  Lawrence 
placed  so  high  an  estimate  on  these  services.  This  subject  will  be  more 
fully  set  forth  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  report.  It  is  in  evidence,  that 
by  order  of  the  collector,  (Hoyt,)  this  man  (Wasson)  was  despatched  on 
various  occasions  to  other  cities,  for  the  purpose  of  causing  the  seizure  of 
woollens,  which  had  been  many  months  previous,  and  in  some  instances 
over  one  year,  regularly  passed  at  tli3  custom-house  in  New  York,  and  the 
duties  thereon  paid  by  the  importers.  He  had  no  authority,  under  the 
revenue  laws  of  the  United  States,  to  appraise  goods  at  the  custom-house, 
in  which  he  was  a  mere  storekeeper  and  a  nominal  deputy  collector  ;  and 
yet  he  was  authorized  and  did  actually  reappraise  woollens,  so  previously 
passed  at  the  custom-house  in  new  York,  and  the  duties  thereon  paid,  as 
aforesaid,  which  woollens  had  been  removed  from  the  city  of  New  York 
to  other  cities  for  a  market ;  and  under  his  reappraisement  these  goods  were 
seized  and  libelled;  and  his  evidence  of  their  real  value,  at  the  place 
whence  imported,  was  received  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  to  prove 
an  original  fraudulent  entry,  although  he  had  never  seen  these  goods  in 
New  York,  and  their  actual  cost  at  the  European  market  at  which  they 
were  purchased  might,  and  probably  had,  changed  more  than  half  a  dozen 
times  from  the  period  of  the  entry  of  the  goods  to  their  reappraisement  and 
seizure.  In  one  of  these  excursions  he  reappraised  cloths  and  cassimeres 
in  the  city  of  Baltimore,  and  caused  their  indiscriminate  seizure,  attended 
the  trials,  and  gave  evidence  in  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  for 
the  district  of  Maryland,  under  the  orders  of  the  collector  of  the  port  of 
New  York.  And,  besides  his  legal  compensation  as  storekeeper  and  deputy 
collector,  he  received,  for  his  expenses  and  those  of  his  attendants  at  Balti- 
more and  Philadelphia,  the  following  sums,  as  will  appear  on  the  books  of 
the  auditor  at  the  New  York  custom-house,  viz  : 
For  legal  fees  for  travelling  and  attendance  on  the  court,  three 

and  hundred  six  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents         -  -     $306  25 

Extra  compensation  paid  by  the  collector  at  New  York,  nine 

hundred  and  sixty  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents      -  -       960  25 

Making,  in  the  whole,  at  Baltimore,  for  attendance  at  one  term, 
the  round  sum  of  twelve  hundred  and  sixty-six  dollars  and 
fifty  cents     -------     1,266  50 

At  Philadelphia,  for  expenses  for  himself  and  attendants,  be- 
sides the  legal  fees  paid  by  the  marshal,  the  sum  of  five  • 
hundred  and  fifty-six  dollars  and  eight  cents,  at  one  term,  of 
the  court      -------       556  08 

At  Baltimore,  for  himself  and  William  Cairns,  for  attendance  at 
one  term,  besides  the  legal  fees  paid  by  the  marshal,  two 
hundred  and  fifty-one  dollars  -  -  -  251  00 


8 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Making,  in  the  whole,  an  expenditure  of  seventeen  hundred  and  sixty- 
seven  dollars  and  thirty-three  cents,  over  and  above  the  legal  fees,  incurred 
between  the  months  of  May  and  October,  in  the  year  1S40,  for  attendance 
on  three  trials,  which  appears  to  have  been  paid  by  the  collector  at  New 
York,  without  any  voucher  filed  in  the  auditor's  office  to  justify  the  pay- 
ment. On  other  occasions,  this  same  individual  was  sent  to  Boston  on  similar 
business,  but  there  is  no  voucher  in  the  auditor's  office  to  show  the  amount 
paid  to  him  for  his  attendance  and  expenses  in  that  city.  It  will  be  proper 
to  remark  that,  during  the  time  occupied  in  attending  these  trials,  all  the 
duties  of  George  A.  Wasson  at  the  custom-house  in  New  York  were  neg- 
lected, while  he  was  in  the  receipt  of  the  full  amount  of  the  compensation 
allowed  by  law  to  the  public  storekeeper  and  deputy  collector.  These 
facts  furnish  a  glimpse  at  the  enormous  system  which  will  hereafter  be 
noticed,  to  embarrass  foreign  commerce  and  thereby  diminish  the  revenue, 
in  which  George  A.  Wasson,  William  Cairns,  and  others,  were  used  as  the 
instruments  of  the  collector,  in  the  appraisement,  seizure,  and  condemnation 
of  woollens  imported  by  foreigners  into  the  port  of  New  York. 

It  also  appears  in  evidence  that  a  great  variety  of  petty  frauds  and  illegal 
practices  were  perpetrated  by  this  same  individual,  George  A.  Wasson  ;  andr 
without  entering  into  a  detail  of  the  testimony  given  before  the  commis- 
sioners on  these  matters, it  will  be  sufficient  to  class  them  under  the  general 
heads  of  abstraction  of  goods  from  the  public  store  in  Nassau  street,  for 
his  own  use,  which  was  done  to  a  considerable  extent,  as  will  abundantly 
appear  by  the  testimony  of  Floyd  D.  Archer,  John  Searing,  and  others ;. 
the  purchase  of  goods  at  the  nine  months  sales,  sometimes  in  his  own 
name,  and  sometimes  in  the  names  of  other  persons,  of  the  quality  of  which, 
goods  he  had  acquired  an  accurate  knowledge,  by  appraising  and  packing 
them,  which  was  denied  to  all  other  bidders,  who  were  not  allowed  either 
to  see  or  examine  these  goods  when  offered  at  auction  ;  the  abstraction  of 
custom-house  coal  for  his  own  use,  and  the  employment  of  laborers,  hired 
and  paid  at  the  public  store,  to  labor  for  his  own  use  and  benefit.  Some 
of  these  fraudulent  practices  will  be  more  fully  explained  and  exposed  in 
a  subsequent  part  of  this  report. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  George  A.  Wasson,  besides  the  enormous  sums 
before  stated  paid  to  him  for  cartage  and  labor,  without  any  voucher  other 
than  a  mere  general  charge,  was  made  a  deputy  collector,  having  no  duty 
to  perform,  at  a  salary  of  fifteen  hundred  dollars  per  annum  ;  that  he  re- 
ceived large  sums  of  money  from  Hoyt,  the  collector,  for  attending  trials  on 
seized  goods  at  Baltimore  and  elsewhere,  without  being  required  to  specify 
any  item  of  expenditure  on  which  these  advances  could  be  justified;  that 
he  abstracted  a  large  amount  of  goods  from  the  public  store,  and  made  use 
of  the  custom-house  coal  for  his  own  use,  and  employed  the  time  of  a  large 
number  of  laborers  in  and  about  his  own  premises,  whose  hire  was  paid 
by  the  public,  and  whose  services  were  constantly  required  at  the  public 
store.  The  undersigned  found  this  man  in  office  at  the  commencement  of 
the  investigations  into  the  affairs  of  the  New  York  custom-house.  He  was 
continued  precisely  as  he  had  been  placed  by  Mr.  Hoyt  until  the  investi- 
gations had  progressed  about  one  month,  and  then  was  removed,  because 
the  commissioners  discovered  that  the  laborers  and  subordinate  officers 
under  his  control  refused  to  testify  to  facts  within  their  knowledge,  implicat- 
ing him,  fearing  the  consequences  which  were  threatened,  of  instant  re 
moval,  if  they  did  so.    He  was  allowed  to  testify  in  extenuation  or  expla 


Rep.  No.  609. 


9 


nation  of  the  evidence  given  against  him  ;  but  his  answers  to  interrogatories 
put  to  him,  being  deemed  unsatisfactory,  were  received,  with  the  intention 
of  again  calling  him  to  answer  before  the  commissioners,  which  subsequent 
examination  was  never  carried  into  effect.  At  the  close  of  his  testimony, 
given  under  oath,  he  states  that  the  same  extravagant  system  of  charges 
for  cartage  and  labor,  which  had  been  sanctioned  while  Jesse  Hoyt  re- 
mained in  office,  was  continued  under  the  new  collector,  Edward  Curtis; 
and  that  he  informed  Mr.  Curtis  fully  on  this  subject  shortly  after  he  came 
into  office.  It  cannot  fail  to  be  matter  of  surprise  that  such  a  man  as  this 
should  be  an  object  of  commendation  with  distinguished  manufacturers  in 
different  portions  of  the  country,  and  that  he  should  be  pronounced  by 
them  u  honest  and  faithful,"  and  recommended  as  a  fit  person  to  be  con- 
tinued in  office  at  the  New  York  custom-house.  The  reason  may  perhaps 
be  made  manifest,  when  another  part  of  this  investigation  shall  be  taken 
up  for  consideration. 

The  branch  of  disbursements  at  the  custom-house  which  follows  next 
in  order  is  the  expenditures  in  the  collector's  office  and  the  other  depart- 
ments employed  in  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  in  books,  stationery,  and 
printing.  The  undersigned  submits  a  comparative  statement  of  the  ex- 
penditures falling  under  the  above  heads,  as  they  existed  during  nine 
months  of  the  year  1S38,  the  years  1839  and  1840,  and  three  months  of 
the  year  1841.  The  aggregate  amount  expended  in  each  year  will  appear 
by  the  statement  herewith  exhibited,  which  embraces  the  several  branches 
of  the  public  service  connected  with  the  customs  at  this  port ;  the  whole  of 
which,  for  the  period  of  three  years,  embracing  a  few  days  longer  than  the 
term  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  administration  of  the  custom-house,  amounted  to  the 
total  of  $51,703  22,  divided  under  the  several  heads,  as  follows: 

•Amount  of  sums  expended  for  stationery  in  the  various  departments  of 

the  custom-house. 


Articles. 

183S 

1839. 

1840. 

1841 

Total. 

9  months. 

3  months. 

Blank  books  - 

§2,932  03 

4,066  30 

$4,812  06 

SI, 577  00 

$13,387  39 

Steel  pens  and  quills 

657 

54 

1,593  88 

2,671  24 

1,332 

50 

6,255  16 

Lead  pencils  - 

26 

25 

346  63 

581  38 

618 

00 

1.572  26 

Foolscap  and  post  paper 

906 

00 

818  76 

1,413  51 

414 

75 

3,553  02 

Letter  paper 

157 

50 

783  50 

649  89 

393 

50 

1,984  39 

Report  and  envelope  paper 

104 

13 

586  40 

852  38 

599 

88 

2,142  79 

Drawing  paper  - 

31 

25 

50 

00 

81  25 

Tape  - 

186 

24 

619  00 

840  81 

486 

00 

2,132  05 

Wafers  and  vtax. 

194  81 

337  39 

349 

25 

881  45 

Sand  - 

33 

00 

70  38 

67  00 

32 

00 

202  38 

Blanks            -          -  - 

2,239 

19 

4,676  50 

3,518  81 

2,435 

25 

12,869  75 

Knives  - 

23 

25 

130  84 

118  25 

161 

00 

433  34 

Checks  and  certificates  - 

623 

03 

132  32 

44  85 

800  20 

Ink  - 

•  123 

63 

191  15 

231  19 

155 

99 

701  96 

Total  amount  of  stationery- 

8,043 

04 

14,210  27 

16,138  76 

8,605 

12 

46,997  39 

Sundries,  not  enumerated 

444 

46 

3,570  60 

574  40 

116 

57 

4,706  03 

8,487 

50 

17,780  87 

16,713  16 

8,721 

69 

51,703  22 

10 


Rep.  No.  669. 


In  1S3S 
In  LS33 
Iil  1840 

111  3  months  of  1 S4 1  - 


RECAPITULATION. 


-  558,487  50 

-  17,780  87 

-  16,713  16 

-  8,721  69 


51,703  22 


From  the  foregoing  summary  it  will  be  seen  that  the  average  amount 
paid  in  each  year,  commencing  at  the  close  of  the  first  quarter  of  1838, 
and  ending  on  the  31st  March,  1841,  was  $17,234  42,  which  was  paid  by 
the  collector  to  the  following-named  persons,  to  wit : 

M.  P.  O'Hern  ------    $25,298  90 

Fenwick  &  Fiora,  (printers)  ....      10,813  99 

A.  S.  Gould  -------        7,637  17 

G.  F.  Hopkins  &  Sons         -  -  -  -  -  83  00 

Win.  G.  Boggs        -  -  -  -  -  -  627  19 

A.  T.  Jones"-  ------        1,507  25 

Hector  Craig  l,68S  00 

Boien  &  Parks         ------  409  50 

A.  C.  Flanagan        -  -  -  -  -  550  00 

Wm.  Davids  &  Co.  -  -  -  -  -  -  262  50 

J.  Goldsmidt  -  4S7  50 

Jared  W.  Bell         -  -  -  -  -  -  116  10 

M.  McGrath  -  -  -  -  -  -  11  50 

L.  J.  Cohen  ------  4  00 

C.  L.  Allen  -------  75 


49,547  35 

Paid  sundry  individuals  subsequent  to  J.  Hoyt's  term  of 

office,  but  ordered  during  his  term  -  2,155  S7 


51,703  22 


The  following  tables  will  exhibit  the  prices  actually  paid  at  the  custom- 
house, and  those  at  which  the  same  articles  are  sold  in  the  New  York  mar- 
ket, and  at  which  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  collector  to  have  purchased 
them,  either  by  contract  or  by  purchase  in  the  usual  way,  at  the  wholesale 
houses,  through  a  suitable  agent  appointed  for  that  purpose. 


Hep.  No.  669. 


11 


Comparative  prices  of  stationery  under  Jesse  Hoyt,  late  collector,  and 
Edward  Curtis,  collector,  and  the  market  value  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  as  shown  by  the  testimony  of  David  Felt,  stationer. 


Prices  under  Mr. 

Prices  under  Mr. 

.Market  value. 

Articles  supplied. 

Hoyt. 

Curtis. 

Cash  book,  4  quires  each  - 

$20 

$11. 

Impost  book          —  — 

$8  unbound,  2  quires; 

$fi  unbound   in  2 

$19  50,  book  of  15 

book  of  15  quires, 

quires;  book  of  15 

quires,  bound. 

bounds  $68. 

quires,  bound,  $53. 

Bond  book 

$15  each  - 

$12  - 

$6  each. 

Treasurv  note  book 

$6  each 

$6  to  $15  - 

$4  each. 

Notice  book 

$8  each 

$3  each. 

Master's  oath,  2  on  a  sheet  - 

$  12  per  ream 

$12  to  $14  per  ream 

$7  per  ream. 

Consignee's  oath,  4  on  a 

$12  per  ream 

$12  to$l4  per  ream. 

$7  per  ream. 

sheet. 

Form  of  permit,  4  on  a  sheet 
Shipper's  oalh,  G  on  a  sheet 

$12  per  ream 

$12  to  $14  per  ream 

>~  per  ream. 

$12  per  ream 

$12  to  $14  per  ream 

$7  per  ream. 

Entry  of  merchandise,  2  on 

$12  per  ream 

$12  to  $14  per  ream 

$  /  50  per  ream. 

a  sheet. 

Other  blanks 

$10to$l8 

$10  to  $18  per  ream 

$6  to  $7  50. 

Pens  by  the  card,  largest  and 

$1  25  to  $1  85  - 

75  cts.  to  83  cts.  - 

$6  by  the  gross,  or 

best. 

50  cents  per  card. 

Commercial  pens 

75  cents  per  card 

75  cents  per  card 

17  cents  per  card. 

Pens  by  the  card,  usual  size, 

75  cents  to  $1  25  - 

75  cts.  to  83  cts.  - 

25  cents  per  card,  or, 

(small.) 

if  taken  in  boxes,  at 

$1  80  per  gross. 

Letter  paper  (average  price) 

$5  to  $8;  $6  67  aver- 

$5 per  ream  to  $7 

$3  to  $3  50  (ruled) 

by  the  ream. 

age    one  quarter, 
1841. 

per  ream. 

per  ream. 

Abstract  piper 

$100  to  $141 

None 

$47  50  per  ream. 

Foolscap  - 

$6  per  ream 

$5  per  ream  to  $5  50 

$2  perream,  (ruled.) 

Abstract    paper,  (inferior 

$70  per  ream. 

18|  cts.  per  sheet,  or 

$15  per  ream. 

quality.) 

$80  per  ream. 

Abstract,  (smaller  size) 

$40  per  ream 

$11  per  ream. 

Pencils,  by  the  gross 

$15  to  $28 

$15  to  $12 

$9. 

Tape,  by  the  gross  - 

$12  to  $18 

$12 

$6  50. 

Wafers,  by  the  pound 

$1  50 

$1  50 

60  cents. 

"Wax,  by  the  pound 

$1  75 

$1  50 

75  cents. 

Quills,  by  the  1,000 

$40 

$40 

$35. 

Ink,  by  the  gallon  - 

$1  50 

$1  25  - 

75  cents. 

Sand  - 

$3  to  $3  50  per  peck 

$2  per  peck,  or  25 
cents  per  quart. 

12  g    cents    if  pur- 
chased by  the  bushel, 

• 

or  25  cents  per  peck. 

12 


Hep. "No.  669. 


£  ■*«* 

s  § 

53 

<5  oo 

11 

c« 
§  * 

8  ^ 

-IS 

i  s 
8.,* 

<?~ 

J2  S 

c 

II 

c  <*  £ 

-  S  | 
g  cm  S 

^  CO  § 

:§  £^ 

^  S3  s3 


c  » 

•X  CO 


1  s 

s  s 

C  Q. 

03 


S3  a 
>  *  o 


6 

S5    —  - 

co      co  o 

— '  o 

gV-  1 

»  03  CT  a 


Oi  03 
r-t  a* 

CM  W 


cm 

o 
•-a 


1 

w 

■ 

i 

CJ 

O 

O 

03 

o 

a> 

Ph 

co 

c: 

CO 

UT 

T3 

co  ^  _i>  -r; 

co  co  co  3  -  — (  § 


•  -h  a>  a> 


X) 


o    «  °       o       o  ^ 

2        -        C        C  «* 


o      c  o 

CO  CM 


co  «i 

CO  'O 

o 

o 

O  ©  O) 

CO  Ci 

o 

c 

CM 

CM 

ei 
o 

CO  V)  *o 

CO  CM 

l> 

r— 1 

CO 

CO 

o  o  o 

co  co 

CM 

CM 

c> 

CO 

o 

CI  IT)  »C 

r~  co 

I— 1 

CO 

l> 

3 

vxT  oT  ccT 

»— 1 

CO 

CM 

1— 1 

CO  CO 

OS  I> 

o  co 

CM  r-l 


O  i—i  CM 


CO  CM 

o 

o 

co 

CO 

vo  CO 

o 

-h  CM 

o 

CO 

1  »0 

rf*  co 

CO  — • 

VO 

O  co 

lh- 

t  -  CM 

CM 

1— I 

1 

bo 


o 


O  <» 


c3  jsj 

03 


O  L 

O  <  v: 


6  2 

.9 

vT  2  o  S 

£  o  o .  -g 

o  o  M  o 


03 


C3 

03 

o 

O 

CO 

03 
H 

o 

O 
-i— > 

CO 

Tf  O 

!- 

VO  vo 

VO 

VO 

CO 

C5 

CO 

CM 

1  1- 

VO 

co 

— i  Oi 

CO 

CO 

1—1 

^  cc 

O 

VO 

CO 

CO 

vo^  CM 

Ci 

or 

<£ 

1 

i 

CO  — • 

o 

CO  CO 

VO 

vo 

CO 

CO 

O 

CI  CO 

1  o» 

o 

I—I 

co  rf 

i—i 

o  r* 

CO 

o 

CO 

CO 

CO 

o 

r-t  VO 

— " 

CO 

cT 

co" 

co" 

co" 

1 

o 

VO 

i  s 

oo 


W    ^  — '  Kl  h 

5  £         £  £ 


CO 


o 


Rep.  No.  fi69. 


13 


To  the  foregoing  statements  of  expenditures  for  stationery,  it  may  afford 
an  illustration  of  these  expenditures  to  give  the  amount  of  the  second  quar- 
ter of  each  year,  from  1838  to  the  second  quarter  of  the  year  1841.  Mr. 
Hoyt  entered  on  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  as  collector,  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  second  quarter  of  the  year  1838;  and  Mr.  Curtis  entered  on  the 
discharge  of  his  duties,  in  the  same  office,  at  the  commencement  of  the  sec- 
ond quarter  of  the  year  1841  : 


Officers. 

2d  quarter 
1838. 

2d  quarter 
1839. 

2d  quarter 
1840. 

2d  quarter 
1841. 

Collector 
Appraisers 
Storekeeper 
Inspectors 

Washington  street  store  - 
Staten  Island  store 

$2,040  31 
S  00 

#1,518  69 
245  15 
570  76 
736  00 
40  S8 

#2,436  63 
130  99 
652  73 
644  50 
49  00 
109  00 

#1,753  78 
US  50 
203  87 
24  50 
20  56 

2,048  31 

3,111  48 

4,022  S5 

2,221  21 

From  the  foregoing  statement,  it  appears  that  in  the  second  quarter  of 
1838,  the  first  three  months  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  collectorship,  the  amount  of 
expenditure  for  stationery  and  printing,  including  all  the  departments  of 
the  custom-house,  was  $2,048  31  ;  and  for  the  second  quarter  of  the  two 
succeeding  years,  while  Mr.  Hoyt  remained  in  office,  the  amount  of  ex- 
penditure was  as  follows:  in  1839,  S3, 111  48;  in  1840,  $4,022  S5  ;  and. 
in  the  second  quarter  of  1841,  being  the  first  three  months  of  Mr.  Curtis's 
collectorship,  the  amount  of  expenditure  was  $2,221  21.  This  estimate 
places  the  first  month  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  expenditure  for  stationery  and  print- 
ing below  that  of  the  first  three  months  of  Mr.  Curtis's  expenditure,  by 
the  amount  of  $1 72  90,  notwithstanding  the  unusually  large  sum  charged 
in  the  last  quarter  of  Mr.  Hoyt  for  stationery  and  printing,  which  was 
calculated  to  diminish  in  the  same  ratio  the  necessity  of  a  large  expendi- 
ture for  the  same  purposes  in  the  first  quarter  of  his  successor,  who  had 
the  benefit  of  this  enormous  expenditure  at  the  close  of  the  term  of  ser- 
vice of  his  predecessor.  Reference  is  made  to  the  table  of  expenditures 
for  stationery  and  printing  in  the  last  quarter  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  collectorship, 
to  show  the  amount  charged  under  that  head  in  the  settlement  of  his  final 
account.  It  will  be  seen,  also,  by  the  above  table,  that  the  reduction,  dur- 
ing the  second  quarter  of  the  year  1841,  of  expenditures  for  stationery 
and  printing,  did  not  take  place  in  the  collector's  office,  but  was  made  in 
other  departments  of  the  custom-house,  which  are  now  regarded  as  inde- 
pendent of  the  collector,  on  the  subject  of  these  various  expenditures,  each 
being  held  responsible  for  the  disbursements  made  in  the  execution  of  its 
legitimate  duties. 

The  undersigned  has  caused  these  comparative  statements  to  be  care- 
fully compiled  from  the  vouchers  furnished  to  the  commissioners  by  the 
auditor  of  the  custom-house.    They  are  offered,  not  in  consideration  of 


14 


Kep.  No.  6G9. 


the  amount  of  expenditure,  but  to  exhibit  a  fair  specimen,  through  them, 
of  every  other  expenditure,  great  and  small,  in  the  custom-house  at  New 
York,  for  a  series  of  years  past.  They  will  serve  to  guide  the  accounting 
otiicers  of  the  Department  of  the  Treasury,  in  the  examination  of  all  fu- 
ture returns  which  may  be  made  of  disbursements  for  similar  purposes. 

It  will  be  seen,  in  the  general  abstract  of  the  sums  expended  for  books, 
stationery,  and  printing,  during  the  last  quarter  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  collector- 
ship,  including  20  days  while  J.  J.  Morgan  was  in  office,  and  a  few  days 
before  the  commencement  of  the  second  quarter,  that  the  expenditures 
under  the  various  heads  amounted  to  $8,721  69,  distributed  as  follows  : 


Blank  books           -  $1,577  00 
Steel  pens,  and  a  small  amount  for  quills,  of  which  but  few 

were  purchased    -  -  -  -  -  -  1,322  50 

Lead  pencils           -  -  -  -  -  -  618  00 

Foolscap  and  post  paper  -  -  -  -  -  414  75 

Letter  paper           -  393  50 

Report  and  envelope  paper  -  -  -  -  -  599  8S 

Drawing  paper        -  -  -  -  -  -  50  00 

Tape           -          -  -  -  -  -  4S6  00 

Wafers  and  wax  -  -  -  -  -  349  00 

Sand           -  32  00 

Blanks                   ------  2,435  00 

Knives        -          -  -  -  -  -  -  161  00 

Ink             -          -  -  -  -  -  -  155  99 

Sundries,  not  enumerated  -  -  -  -  -  11657 


Total       -      $8,721  69 


This  enormous  amount  stands  charged  on  the  books  of  the  eustom-house 
in  the  short  space  of  three  months,  of  which  $5,416  11  were  debited  to 
the  collector's  and  storekeeper's  offices,  in  which  there  were  employed  79 
clerks ;  making  an  average  of  $275  76  per  annum  for  stationery  for  each 
person  attached  to  these  offices.  There  weie,  during  this  quarter,  one 
hundred  and  thirty-six  reams  of  foolscap  and  letter  paper  ordered  and  sup- 
plied for  the  use  of  the  custom-house,  which  forms  a  part  of  the  aggregate 
sum  as  above  stated.  It  is  evident  that  so  large  an  amount  of  stationery 
could  not  have  been  required  for  any  legitimate  purpose  connected  with 
the  business  of  the  several  departments  of  the  custom-house,  to  be  used 
in  the  short  period  of  three  months,  and  therefore  the  greater  portion  of 
the  articles  purchased  must  have  passed  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Curtis,  who 
succeeded  to  the  office  of  collector  about  the  close  of  that  quarter,  or  have 
been  fraudulently  abstracted  from  the  custom-house,  of  which  no  evidence 
was  given  to  the  commissioners ;  but  in  the  accounts  and  vouchers  ren- 
dered by  Mr.  Curtis  in  the  second  quarter  of  the  same  year,  being  the  first 
quarter  after  he  became  collector,  there  is  charged,  for  disbursements  in 
the  purchase  of  stationery  ordered  and  received  by  him  for  the  collector's-, 
office  alone,  $1,753  75;  for  the  appraisers,  $118  50;  for  the  storekeeper,, 
$203  87  ;  for  inspectors,  $24  50 ;  for  the  store  in  Washington  street,, 
$20  56  ;  making,  in  the  whole,  the  grand  total  of  $10,942  90  for  station- 
ery alone,  during  one-half  of  the  year  1S41. 

A  careful  examination  of  the  tables  hereinbefore  referred  to,  and  made 


Rep.  No.  669.  15 

a  part  of  this  report,  will  sufficiently  demonstrate  the  causes  which  have 
led  to  the  enormous  expenditures  for  books,  stationery,  and  printing  ;  but 
it  may  be  useful  to  present  a  summary  of  the  most  remarkable  items 
charged  to  the  custom-house  in  the  bills  rendered  by  the  several  individu- 
als who  had  the  benefit  of  supplying  these  articles.  The  single  item  of 
steel  pens  and  quills,  of  the  latter  of  which  but  few  were  ordered,  and 
therefore  scarcely  worth  mentioning,  amounted,  during  the  three  years  of 
Mr.  Hoyt's  administration  of  the  custom-house,  to  the  sum  of  $6,255  16. 
The  price  of  these  pens,  charged  in  the  bills  rendered  and  paid  by  Mr. 
Hoyt,  ranged  from  the  minimum  of  $9  per  gross  to  the  maximum  of  $22 
per  gross,  the  larger  proportion  being  of  the  lower  class,  which  are  in  gen- 
eral use  for  clerks,  both  mercantile  and  official.  The  depositions  of  David 
Felt,  E.  J.  Eno,  and  Josiah  Hayden,  who  are  large  dealers  in  the  article  of 
steel  pens,  are  referred  to,  to  show  the  standard  price  per  gross  of  the  de- 
scriptions used  at  the  custom-house.  If  purchased  in  boxes,  which  is  the 
most  convenient  mode  of  supplying  clerks,  (the  cards  being  entirely  use- 
less,) it  will  be  seen  that  the  first  class  of  "  Gillot's "  magnum  bonum 
pens,  or  pens  of  equal  quality,  could  be  supplied,  in  the  New  York  mar- 
ket, at  $4  50  per  gross  on  the  card,  or  one-half  that  sum  in  boxes  ;  and 
what  is  denominated  the  "commercial  pen,"  at  $2  per  gross  on  the  card, 
or  $1  50  in  boxes.  Taking  the  average  of  these  prices,  and  considering 
that  nineteen-twentieths  of  the  pens  supplied  to  the  custom-house  are  of 
the  latter  class,  it  will  appear  that,  at  these  rates,  the  sum  appropriated  by 
Mr.  Hoyt  while  he  remained  in  office  would  have  supplied  the  enormous 
quantity  of  432,237  pens,  making  an  average  of  144,079  per  annum,  to 
be  distributed  among  about  100  clerks  who  are  constantly  employed  in 
writing,  and  a  few  other  subordinate  officers  of  the  customs  who  occasion- 
ally have  to  make  reports  to  some  one  of  the  departments  of  the  custom- 
house. This  would  amount  to  an  average  of  about  fifteen  hundred  pens 
for  each  constant  writer  per  annum. 

Mr.  Eno,  agent  of  a  large  manufacturer  of  pens  in  Massachusetts, 
testifies  that  he  exhibited  at  the  desk  of  the  collector,  Mr.  Hoyt,  to  the 
cashier,  bond  and  entry  clerks,  specimens  of  the  class  of  pens  which  were 
paid  for  by  Mr.  Hoyt  at  the  minimum  of  $9  per  gross,  and  made 
an  offer  to  furnish  the  custom-house  with  any  quantity  of  this  article  which 
might  be  wanted  at  the  moderate  rates  above  mentioned,  to  wit :  $1  50  per 
gross  in  boxes,  and  $2  per  gross  on  cards,  to  which  the  collector  "  gave 
an  off-hand  answer,  declining  the  offer  so  decidedly  as  to  prevent  any 
repetition  of  the  offer."  Such  conduct  on  the  part  of  this  high  officer  of 
the  Government  can  be  accounted  for  only  on  principles  and  motives  in- 
consistent with  the  faithful  discharge  of  the  important  duties  with  which 
he  was  intrusted. 

It  may  be  asked  why  particular  individuals  are  allowed  and  paid  at 
rates  ranging  from  $9  to  $22  per  gross  for  pens,  for  the  use  of  the  custom- 
house, when  an  offer  to  supply  like  articles  at  the  moderate  price  of  $1  50 
per  gross  is  contemptuously  rejected  and  spurned  ?  The  undersigned 
refers  to  the  volume  of  evidence  taken  by  the  commissioners  to  demon- 
strate the  fact,  which,  in  the  absence  of  clear  proof,  might  well  be  doubted, 
that  this  and  numerous  other  cases  of  favoritism,  so  gross  and  palpable 
that  none  can  mistake  it,  had  their  origin  in  a  system  of  fraud  on  the 
public  Treasury,  to  promote  the  interests  of  selected  partisans,  who  could 
be  relied  on  for  efficient  services  in  popular  elections. 


16 


Rep.  No.  669. 


This  conclusion  is  strongly  enforced  by  the  mass  of  evidence  taken  in 
relation  to  the  existence  of  a  custom-house  tax,  regularly  levied  and  paid, 
in  advance  of  elections  for  city  officers,  for  Governor,  and  Representatives 
in  the  State  Legislature,  for  members  of  Congress,  and  for  President  and 
Vice  President  of  the  United  States,  during  the  whole  period  of  the  two 
preceding  administrations  of  the  Federal  Government.  This  tax  was 
graduated  on  a  scale  corresponding  with  the  salary  received  by  each 
officer  and  the  importance  of  the  pending  election,  and  a  refusal  to  pay 
it,  was  immediately  followed  by  removal  from  office. 

It  will  also  be  seen,  by  the  report  of  the  surveyor  and  oilier  evidence, 
that  numerous  officers  of  the  customs  were  absent  from  duty,  either  by  the 
express  permission  of  the  collector  or  without  censure  from  that  officer, 
for  weeks  and  months  prior  to  elections,  for  no  other  purpose  than  to 
influence  voters,  and  lend  their  aid  to  the  success  of  candidates  favorable 
to  the  party  in  power,  while  their  salaries  as  officers  of  the  Government, 
suffered  no  diminution  in  consequence  of  their  absence  from  duty. 

It  is  mortifying  to  be  obliged  to  trace  the  conduct  of  a  high  and  re- 
sponsible officer  of  the  Government  to  motives  so  unworthy  of  the  station 
he  occupied  and  of  the  moral  character  of  the  country  ;  but  a  faithful 
discharge  of  public  duty  leaves  the  undersigned  no  alternative  but  to 
animadvert  freely  on  official  malpractices  so  gross  and  alarming,  establish- 
ed as  they  are  by  a  chain  of  testimony  which  to  every  impartial  mind 
must  be  conclusive. 

The  same  system  of  wasteful  extravagance  is  seen  in  every  article  falling 
under  the  denomination  of  stationery.  The  undersigned  will  briefly  notice 
some  of  them,  before  this  part  of  the  report  is  closed.  For  the  supply  of 
blank  books  and  blanks,  from  the  commencement  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  term  of 
service  to  the  date  of  the  appointment  of  Edward  Curtis,  there  is  charged 
the  enormous  sum  of  $26,257  14,  or  an  average  of  $8,752  38  per  annum. 
The  manner  in  which  bills  for  these  articles  were  rendered  and  passed  by 
the  auditor  makes  it  almost  impossible  to  discriminate  between  the  various 
classes  of  books,  so  as  to  ascertain  precisely  the  difference  between  what 
would  have  been  the  actual  cost  in  the  New  York  market  and  the  prices 
paid  at  the  custom-house.  Referring  to  the  testimony  of  David  Felt,  and 
to  the  comparative  statements  made  in  a  previous  part  of  this  report,  it 
appears,  upon  exhibiting  to  the  witness  samples  of  blank  books  purchased 
by  Mr.  Hoyt,  that  such  as  are  charged  at  $20  are  placed  by  the  witness 
at  $11,  those  charged  at  $15  are  rated  at  $6,  and  others  charged  at  from 
$6  to  $S  are  estimated  at  the  selling  prices  in  New  York  at  from  $3  to  $4 
each.  But  the  most  remarkable  item  in  this  class  of  charges,  made  by 
Mr.  Hoyt,  is  of  "  impost  books,"  which  are  purchased  in  small  quarter- 
bound  books  of  two  quires,  which,  at  the  end  of  each  year,  are  bound  up 
in  one  volume,  containing  fifteen  quires.  The  quarter- bound  books  of  two 
quires  are  charged  at  $8  each,  which  would  bring  the  entire  volume  of 
fifteen  quires,  at  the  end  of  each  year,  to  the  sum  of  $60,  besides  the  bind- 
ing, which  is  charged  at  $8  ;  while  this  large  volume,  well  bound,  Mr. 
Felt  states,  could  be  supplied  at  $19  50 — making  a  difference  in  a  single 
volume,  including  the  binding,  of  $48  50. 

Since  Mr.  Curtis  carne  into  office,  the  price  of  each  small  book  of  two 
quires  is  reduced  to  $6,  which  would  bring  the  large  volume  of  fifteen 
quires  to  $45,  exclusive  of  the  binding;  which,  if  charged  at  former  rates, 


Rep.  No.  669. 


17 


would  amount  to  $53  per  volume — making  a  difference  of  $33  50  between 
the  price  paid  and  the  actual  cost  at  which  it  is  valued  by  Mr.  Felt. 

This  example  is  selected  from  numerous  others,  for  the  purpose  of  placing 
before  the  Government  and  country,  in  a  clear  light,  the  reckless  extrava- 
gance which  has  been  practised  without  restraint,  in  the  collection  of  the 
revenue  at  this  port,  under  former  administrations  ;  but  it  assuredly  does 
not  stand  alone  in  enormity,  for  there  is  scarcely  a  single  article  supplied 
to  the  custom-house  that  does  not  bear  it  company  without  a  blush.  It 
will  presently  be  seen  how  far  those  errors  have  been  corrected  and  reformed 
under  the  new  collector,  Edward  Curtis.  Deeming  it  unnecessary  to  go 
through  the  whole  list  of  disbursements,  for  every  article  falling  under  the 
head  of  stationery,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  state  that  the  prices  paid  for  them 
by  the  collector,  Hoyt,  during  his  term  of  service,  usually  ranged  from  100 
to  200  per  cent.,  and  in  some  instances  more,  above  the  regular  New  York 
price  for  the  same  article  ;  and  the  trouble  of  procuring  them  at  the 
regular  charges  would  have  been  even  less  than  it  was  to  find  individuals 
who  would  consent  to  be  made  the  instruments  of  rendering  such  bills 
as  those  paid  by  Hoyt,  to  answer  the  ends  to  which  the  undersigned  has 
heretofore  adverted.  But  it  may  be  proper  and  useful  to  extend  the  notice, 
which  has  been  taken  of  extravagant  items,  to  a  few  more,  which  are  too 
remarkable  to  be  overlooked.  In  the  bills  rendered  by  O'Hern  and  others, 
the  article  of  writing  sand  is  charged  at  the  rate  of  from  $3  to  $3  50  per 
peck,  and  in  some  cases  even  higher  ;  when  it  is  in  proof,  by  the  deposi- 
tion of  David  Felt,  that  he  supplied  the  same,  if  taken  by  the  bushel,  at 
\2h  cents  per  peck,  or  50  cents  per  bushel ;  and  if  taken  by  the  single  peck, 
at  25  cents ;  and  at  these  rates  he  testifies  that  his  profits  would  be  200 
per  cent. 

During  the  three  years  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  time,  there  was  paid  for  writing 
sand  the  sum  of  $202  38,  which,  if  purchased  at  the  customary  rates,  ac- 
cording to  the  deposition  of  Mr.  Felt,  would  have  supplied  the  quantity  of 
four  hundred  and  four  bushels  and  three  pecks. 

It  may  be  useful,  also,  to  extend  this  summary  to  some  of  the  items  in 
these  bills  to  particular  descriptions  of  paper  purchased  by  the  collector 
from  the  persons  selected  to  supply  the  custom-house.  "  Abstract  paper," 
or  "  blue-laid  English  imperial,"  ruled,  is  charged  in  the  bills  of  O'Hern 
at  the  rate  of  from  $100  to  $144  per  ream  :  its  value  being,  in  the  New  York 
market,  from  $30  to  $47  50  per  ream.  "  Impost-book  paper,"  which  is 
worth  in  the  market  $15  per  ream,  is  charged  in  the  custom-house  bills  at 
from  $70  to  $S0  per  ream  ;  and  demy  paper,  ruled  to  pattern,  which  may  be 
purchased  at  $11  per  ream,  is  usually  charged  to  the  custom-house  at  $40 
per  ream.  The  ordinary  qualities  of  paper  are  advanced  in  price,  on  a  gen- 
eral scale,  about  one  hundred  per  cent. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  all  the  supplies  for  the  custom  -house  were 
furnished  at  second-hand  by  the  individuals  heretofore  named,  selected  by 
Mr.  Hoyt,  to  whom  the  opportunity  was  afforded  of  purchasing  at  the  rates, 
or  even  lower  than  the  estimates  contained  in  the  deposition  of  David  Felt, 
and  the  increased  price  paid  to  them  by  Mr.  Hoyt  constituted  an  enormous 
profit,  while  it  is  manifest  that  the  wholesale  dealers  would  have  supplied 
the  same  articles  at  the  reduced  rates  menlioned  by  Mr.  Felt,  on  which  he 
states  there  would  have  been  to  the  stationer  a  clear  profit  of  from  twenty- 
five  to  thirty-three  and  a  third  per  cent.  This  system  of  favoritism,  so  in- 
consistent with  the  public  interest  and  fair  dealing,  was  uniformly  extend- 
2 


18 


Rep.  No.  669. 


ed  to  the  most  violent  political  partisans,  who  earned  the  favor  by  their  de- 
votion to  the  hand  from  which  they  received  it. 

There  is  one  case  which  it  may  be  proper  to  mention  particularly.  A 
custom-house  officer,  in  the  surveyor's  department,  of  the  name  of  Jones, 
was  evidently  concerned  in  the  supply  of  stationery  to  the  inspectors  of 
the  customs,  who  were  furnished  with  such  articles,  through  his  office. 
By  reference  to  the  deposition  of  Alfred  T.  Jones,  the  son  of  the  above- 
named  officer  of  the  customs.,  it  will  appear  that  he,  being  a  lad  of  eighteen  or 
nineteen  years  of  age,  made  purchases,  for  cash  and  on  credit,  of  stationery^ 
for  which  he  presented  bills  at  the  custom-house,  amounting,  in  all,  as  far 
as  known,  to  $1,507  25,  which  were  paid.  The  age  of  this  youth,  in 
whose  name  the  bills  were  made  out,  connected  with  the  fact  that  his  father 
was  the  proper  officer  for  supplying  the  inspectors  of  the  customs  ;  the  great 
improbability  that  he  could  have  obtained  credit  on  his  own  account  from 
any  wholesale  dealer ;  the  equivocal  manner  in  which  he  testifies,  first  de- 
nying any  participation  of  his  father  in  these  transactions,  and  then  admit- 
ting that  he  paid  to  his  father  the  profits,  or  a  portion  of  them,  adding- 
that  he  did  so  because  his  father  was  his  natural  guardian,  who  held 
the  amount  paid  for  his  benefit,  would  seem  to  leave  no  rational  doubt  in 
the  mind  of  any  one  that  the  business  was  done  on  the  capital  of  the  elder 
Jones,  and  that  the  profits  inured  to  his  benefit,  except  so  far  as  he  might 
reward  his  son  for  the  service  rendered.  The  profits  were  similar  to  those 
already  noticed.  This  man  is  still  retained  as  chief  clerk  in  the  surveyor's 
office  by  the  present  collector,  Mr.  Curtis. 

Nearly  the  same  remarks  may  be  applied  to  the  principal  surveyor  of 
the  port,  Hector  Craig;  who,  being  a  paper  manufacturer,  supplied  his 
own  department  with  paper,  amounting  in  the  whole  to  $1,68S,  during  his 
term  of  office  ;  and,  what  is  still  more  remarkable,  the  bills  were  made  out 
in  his  own  name,  at  the  foot  of  which  he  certified,  under  his  own  signa- 
ture, that  the  amount  was  "just;"  and,  without  any  other  evidence  of 
their  accuracy,  they  were  audited  and  paid  at  the  custom-house. 

The  price  of  printing  blanks,  of  various  descriptions,  is  charged,  in  the 
bills  paid  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  at  the  minimum  of  twelve  dollars  per  ream,  ex- 
tending through  various  intermediate  prices  to  the  maximum  of  twenty- 
five  dollars,  while,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Felt  and  others,  they 
were  worth,  in  this  market,  from  six  dollars  to  seven  dollars  and  fifty  cents 
per  ream.  The  aggregate  amount  paid  during  the  three  years  of  Mr. 
Hoyt's  collectorship,  for  printing  various  descriptions  of  blanks  required  at 
the  custom-house,  was  $12,869  75 — nearly  or  quite  double  the  sum  for 
I  which  the  same  work  might  have  been  procured  by  contract  with  a  regu- 
lar printer,  at  the  usual  rates  paid  for  printing  in  New  York.  It  is  not 
believed  that  the  printing  paid  for  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  the  article  of  blanks,, 
was  either  necessary  in  the  transaction  of  the  public  business  at  the  cus- 
tom-house, or  that  the  quantity  ordered  was  used  for  that  purpose ;  which, 
in  point  of  fact,  may  be  truly  said  of  every  other  article  of  stationery  con- 
tained in  the  bills  furnished  to  the  commissioners  by  the  auditor  for  that 
period. 

Included  in  the  general  result  of  $51,703  22,  expended  by  Mr.  Hoyt  in 
articles  of  stationery,  are  the  bills  rendered  and  paid  for  like  articles  ordered 
for  the  use  of  the  public  store  at  Staten  Island,  at  which  the  quarantine 
ground  of  the  port  of  New  York  is  established.  These  bills  are,  in  some 
respects,  of  a  character  even  more  extraordinary  than  those  already  re 


Rep.  No.  669. 


19 


viewed,  and  therefore  require  particular  notice.  There  are  but  two  per" 
sons  employed  at  this  store  who  stand  in  need  of  stationery  in  the  discharge 
of  their  ordinary  duties,  and  the  business  season  in  each  year  does  not  ex- 
ceed three  months.  It  appears  that  the  aggregate  amount  paid  for  the 
supply  of  stationery  to  these  two  persons,  while  Mr.  Hoyt  was  in  office, 
was  $1,388  27;  making  an  average  of  $462  75§  per  annum,  or  $154  32 
per  month,  while  their  services  were  required.  For  nine  months  in  the 
year  there  are  no  vessels  at  quarantine,  and  therefore  the  storekeeper  and 
his  clerk  have  no  duties  to  perform  during  those  months. 

In  the  year  1838,  for  the  first  two  quarters  there  appears  to  be  no  charge 
for  Staten  Island ;  in  the  third  and  fourth  quarters  of  that  year  the  amount 
expended  was  -  -  -  -  $129  56 

In  1839,  for  the  whole  year      -  -  -  164  38 

In  1840,  for  the  whole  year      -  604  75 

In  1841,  for  the  first  quarter,  (January,  February,  and  March.)       489  58 


Total  -  1,3S8  27 


The  above  statement,  founded  on  a  report  of  the  auditor,  is  presumed  to 
be  correct,  although  it  falls  short,  in  some  particulars,  of  the  bills  at.  first 
rendered  by  the  same  officer.  It  is  evident  that  the  amount  of  stationery 
for  the  use  of  the  storekeeper  and  his  clerk  at  Staten  Island,  paid  at  the 
custom-house,  was  either  not  furnished,  or  not  used  at  that  establishment. 
A  few  examples  drawn  from  these  bills  will  fully  justify  this  conclusion. 
For  nine  months  of  the  year  1840,  including  only  three  months  of  business, 
there  is  charged  twenty-five  reams  of  letter  and  foolscap  paper,  at  the 
round  sum  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-nine  dollars  and  fifty  cents,  and  every 
other  article  in  the  same  proportion.  Could  this  quantity  of  paper  have 
been  fairly  appropriated  to  the  purposes  required  at  this  single  store  ?  or 
could  any  two  clerks  have  written  over  twenty-five  reams  of  paper  in 
three  months  ?  Assuredly  not.  But  what  renders  this  enormous  supply 
of  paper  still  more  unreasonable  is  the  fact  that,  for  the  same  three  months, 
there  is  charged  one  hundred  and* eighty-six  dollars  and  fifty  cents  for 
printed  blanks,  exclusive  of  one  other  ream,  for  the  printing  alone  of  which 
there  is  charged  twenty-five  dollars — being  double  the  amount  usually 
charged  for  printing  and  paper  in  Mr.  Hoyt's  bills  for  the  custom-house, 
and  four  times  the  amount  at  which  the  same  work  might  have  been  done, 
at  the  customary  rates.  It  constitutes  a  singular  fact  in  reference  to  these 
expenditures  at  the  quarantine  ground,  that  by  far  the  largest  bills  were 
run  up  at  those  periods  of  the  year  when  not  one  dollar  of  expenditure 
was  necessary  at  the  public  store,  for  stationery  or  printing :  and  the  vast 
disparity  between  the  amounts  expended  in  different  years  ought  not  to  be 
overlooked.  Without,  going  further  into  detail,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  take 
the  last  six  months  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  term  to  prove  that  something  more  than 
the  public  service  entered  into  the  appropriations  made  by  him  at  the 
above-mentioned  public  store.    Commencing  with  the  month  of  October, 

1840,  after  all  business  had  ceased,  and  ending  in  the  month  of  March, 

1841 ,  before  any  vessel  could  be  detained  at  quarantine,  there  was  paid 
for  the  supply  of  stationery  at  Staten  Island  the  sum  of  eight  hundred  and 
ten  dollars  and  eight  cents. 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that,  previous  to  and  about  the  time  of  the 
presidential  election,  there  was  paid  for  the  use  of  this  storekeeper,  who 


Rep.  No.  669. 


had  no  duty  to  perform,  the  sum  of  three  hundred  and  twenty  dollars  and 
fifty  cents.  In  the  month  of  January,  1841,  the  bill  rendered  by  M.  P. 
O'Hern,  and  paid  at  the  custom-house,  amounted  to  the  sum  of  -  $168  50 
In  the  following  month  of  February,  the  bill  of  the  same  individ- 
ual, rendered  and  paid  as  above,  amounted  to  -  -  161  83 
And  in  the  month  of  March  following        -             -  -    159  25 


Total  ------    489  58 


In  these  bills,  besides  the  twenty-five  reams  of  paper,  and  the  large 
quantity  of  printed  blanks  heretofore  noticed  as  having  been  supplied  for 
three  months  of  the  year,  1840,  the  following  analysis  will  show  the 
amount  and  description  of  articles  purchased  for  the  supply  of  a  single 
clerk  at  that  store. 

Amount:  1841 — January       -  $168  50 

February      -  -  -  -  -161  83 

March         -  -  -  -  -       159  25 


489  58 


Distributed  as  follows: 


31  cards  steel  pens   -          -          -  - 

*       $41  50 

8  reams  printed  blanks  - 

94  00 

9  blank  books  - 

73  75 

1  pair  shears  - 

1  50 

4  bottles  ink  - 

3  75 

3  reams  letter  paper  - 

18  50 

9  reams  foolscap    -          -          -  - 

67  00 

100  quills  - 

44  00 

24  dozen  tape  - 

31  00 

7  lbs.  sealing  wax  - 

15  00 

9  lbs.  wafers          -                #  - 

13  00 

1  letter  stamp  - 

75 

4  water  cups  - 

2  75 

1  ream  envelope  paper  - 

7  00 

1  ream  blotting  paper  - 

7  00 

1  desk  knife  - 

1  50 

2  sand  boxes  - 

2  00 

9  balls  twine  - 

3  83 

6  paper  folders  - 

4  50 

2  inkstands-  - 

3  50 

1  bronze  pen  rack  - 

1  50 

6  pieces  India  rubber  - 

1  50 

24  dozen  lead  pencils  - 

46  00 

2  quarts  sand         -          -      .  - 

75 

489  58 

To  which  may  be  added  the  singular  fact,  that  in  the  bill  for  February, 
1841,  there  is  an  item  "  1  card  Perryian  pens,  extra  fine,  #12,"  being  one 
dollar  and  thirty-three  cents  per  pen,  for  the  especial  use  of  an  inspector  of 


Rep.  No.  669. 


the  customs  charged  with  the  keeping  of  the  public  store  on  Staten  Island. 
These  enormities  cannot  but  strike  the  mind  of  every  reflecting  man  with 
astonishment.  They  are  evidences  of  official  delinquency,  if  not  down- 
right corruption,  which  have  but  seldom,  if  ever,  occurred  in  any  civilized 
country  upon  the  face  of  the  earth ;  and  the  minute  detail  which  is  here 
given  of  them  is  designed  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Government  to  the 
reckless  expenditures  of  the  public  money  made  under  the  authority  of 
Jesse  Hoyt,  late  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  and  thereby  enable  the 
constituted  authorities  the  better  to  guard  against  the  recurrence  of  similar 
abuses  in  future. 

Considering  that  for  the  six  months  commencing  on  the  1st  of  October, 
1S40,  and  ending  with  the  first  quarter  of  1841,  the  quarantine  regulations 
ceased  to  operate,  and  consequently  no  supply  of  stationery  was  required 
at  the  public  store  at  the  quarantine  landing;  considering,  also,  the  large 
amount  of  bills  paid  during  these  months,  for  blank  books,  printed  blanks, 
paper  of  various  qualities,  pens,  and  other  articles,  at  prices  enormous  and 
excessive  beyond  all  former  example ;  the  inference  would  seem  to  be 
neither  unreasonable  nor  improbable,  that  these  bills  were  wholly  fictitious, 
and  designed  to  cover  advances  of  money  made  to  the  storekeeper  on  Sta- 
ten Island  for  secret  purposes,  of  a  nature  requiring  concealment,  and  which 
could  not  with  safety  be  disclosed  in  the  quarterly  accounts  of  the  collector 
with  the  Treasury.  No  one  can  look  at  the  bills,  with  a  full  knowledge 
that  the  articles  were  not  wanted  in  the  discharge  of  the  public  duties  of 
the  storekeeper,  and  withhold  his  belief  in  the  conclusion  which  is  drawn 
from  the  premises.  The  impression  is  very  strong,  that  the  same  end  was 
intended  to  be  accomplished  by  the  bills  already  noticed  and  commented 
on,  for  supplies  of  books,  stationery,  and  printing,  at  the  custom-house ;. 
which  impression  is  strengthened  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Fleming,  the 
cashier,  who  states,  under  oath,  that  the  quantity  of  these  articles  ordered 
was  greater  than  could  be  used  by  the  several  departments  of  the  custom- 
house. But  the  whole  of  these  bills  were  audited  and  paid  to  the  order  of 
Mr.  Fleming,  without  regard  to  quantity  or  price,  he  looking,  as  he  said, 
only  to  the  footing,  as  comprising  the  extent  of  his  official  control  over 
them.  This  source  of  expenditure,  with  such  facilities,  and  without  check, 
might  be  carried  to  any  extreme  desired,  in  the  absence  of  all  restraint  at 
the  Treasury  Department,  which  at  that  time  was  in  no  instance  interposed^ 
by  the  requisite  vigilance  of  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury. 

To  what  extent  these  abuses  have  been  looked  into  and  reformed,  by  the 
present  collector,  is  but  imperfectly  known  ;  but,  so  far  as  the  evidence  has 
been  furnished,  a  comparative  statement  will  be  exhibited. 

From  a  review  of  all  the  evidence  taken  on  the  subject  of  stationery,  both 
as  to  quantity  and  price,  the  undersigned  cannot  for  a  moment  hesitate  in 
ascribing  the  amount  ordered  and  the  prices  paid  for  these  articles  to  con- 
siderations and  motives  founded  in  official  corruption  ;  it  is  not  within  the 
scope  of  human  reason,  candidly  exercised,  to  draw  any  other  conclusion. 
The  whole  expenses  incurred  by  Mr.  Hoyt  for  these  supplies  might  have 
been  limited  to  the  sum  paid  at  the  custom-house  in  any  one  year  of  his 
administration,  or  even  less.  Fifteen  thousand  dollars  would  have  been 
amply  sufficient  for  the  whole  term  of  three  years;  and  thereby,  with  ordi- 
nary economy,  the  Government  might  have  saved  on  this  single  branch  of 
expenditure  not  less  than  thirty-five  thousand  dollars.  Viewing  the  sub- 
ject in  this  light,  it  became  a  matter  both  of  curiosity  and  of  interest  to. 


22 


Kep.  No.  669. 


learn  what  officer  of  the  customs  was  charged  with  the  duty  of  ordering 
these  supplies.  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor,  was  questioned  on  this  subject, 
and  testifies,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  officer  at  the  head  of  each  depart- 
ment of  the  custom-house  "to  judge  of  the  prices  of  articles,  and  correct 
exorbitant  charges,  and  to  ascertain  whether  the  articles  charged  have 
been  actually  delivered;  and  the  signature  of  the  officer  ordering  the  arti- 
cles was  deemed  to  be  a  sufficient  voucher  for  its  payment.  He  also  states 
that  accounts  are  rendered  in  duplicate,  each  bill  examined  to  test  the  ac-' 
curacy  of  its  footing  and  the  calculations  of  its  different  items  ;  "but  in  no 
case  did  the  auditor  require  evidence  of  the  delivery  of  the  articles  charged 
in  any  bill,  or  the  necessity  for  the  quantity  ordered,  orthe  price  at  which 
they  were  charged,  except  for  the  mere  purpose  of  testing  the  accuracy  of 
the  footing."  In  a  letter  addressed  to  the  collector,  and  transmitted  to  the 
commissioners,  under  date  of  November  5,  1841,  Mr.  Fleming,  the  audi- 
tor states,  "  there  is  one  part  of  the  order  [of  the  commissioners]  to  which 
I  feel  called  to  make  a  remark.  In  alluding  to  a  former  statement  [of  sta- 
tionery] it  says,  'furnished  by  John  A.  Fleming,'  &c,  by  whom  the  said 
stationery  was  ordered." 

"This  is,"  continues  he,  "an  entire  misconception.  Each  officer  at 
the  head  of  each  branch  of  various  departments  of  the  custom-house 
ordered  all  the  stationery,  &c,  for  the  use  of  his  office.  When  bills  were 
made  out,  they  were  taken  to  the  different  persons  who  ordered  the  arti- 
cles, and  were  by  them  approved  to  be  correct.  They  were  then  brought 
to  the  auditor's  office  for  payment;  and  he,  after  seeing  them  properly  ap- 
proved, drew  a  check  on  the  cashier  for  the  amount." 

Mr.  Fleming  further  states,  in  his  testimony,  that  the  quantity  of  sta- 
tionery ordered  could  not  have  been  required  for  actual  use ;  "  that  it 
must  have  been  taken  from  the  office  in  an  improper  manner  ;"  and  that, 
in  running  his  eye  over  the  bills,  some  of  the  charges  appeared  "  unusually 
large,"  which  were  nevertheless  passed  and  paid.  But  he  acquits  himself 
of  all  responsibility,  by  denying  that  the  supplies  were  furnished  to  his  order, 
or  that  his  duty  as  auditor  required  any  thing  more  of  him  than  to  see 
that  the  footing  and  extensions  corresponded.  M.  P.  O'Hern,  one  of  the 
individuals  selected  by  Mr.  Hoyt  to  furnish  stationery  for  the  use  of  the 
custom-house,  while  under  examination  before  the  commissioners,  on  being 
asked  if  he  had  the  names  of  the  persons  to  whom  he  furnished  steel  pens 
and  other  articles  mentioned  in  his  bills,  replied  in  the  following  words  : 
"  These  pens  were  supplied  to  the  auditor  himself;  almost  all  the  large 
orders  were  made  by  the  auditor ;  all  the  main  articles,  such  as  books, 
tape,  pens,  pencils,  and  paper,  were  ordered  by  him."  And  when  asked 
if  the  principal  part  of  the  articles  furnished  to  the  collector's  department 
were  ordered  by  Mr.  Fleming,  he  replied,  "  The  articles  were  generally- 
ordered  by  the  auditor."  These  bills  of  the  collector  alone  amount,  in 
three  years,  to  more  than  $25,000. 

Thomas  J.  Fen  wick,  another  witness  of  the  same  class,  was  asked, 
"What  custom-house  officer  ordered  the  principal  part  of  the  books  and 
other  stationery  from  your  office  ?"  To  which  he  answered,  "Mr.  Flem- 
ing ordered  them,  chiefly."  A.  S.  Gould,  another  witness,  who  supplied 
the  custom-house  with  printed  blanks,  &c,  was  asked,  "  Have  you  fur- 
nished the  New  York  custom-house  with  books,  stationery,  and  printing; 
and,  if  so,  by  whom  were  the  articles  usually  ordered  ?"  In  answer,  states : 


Rep.  No.  669. 


23 


"  I  have  furnished  the  custom-house  with  printing  only,  which  was  ordered 
by  Mr.  Hoyt  and  Mr.  Fleming,  usually  by  Mr.  Fleming." 

Again:  Sidney  Wetmore,  deputy  collector  and  storekeeper,  when  ques- 
tioned on  the  same  subject,  as  to  supplies  of  stationery  furnished  to  his 
department  of  the  custom-house,  states  that  he  always  understood  that 
there  was  a  contract  with  A.  S.  Gould,  and  Gould  &  Banks,  Fen  wick  & 
Fiora,  and  M.  P.  O'Heru,  made  with  the  former  collector,  as  with  the 
present  ;  that  he  was  instructed  to  obtain  the  supplies  required  for  his  office 
from  those  persons ;  that  all  these  bills  went  to  the  auditor,  by  whom  they 
were  paid  ;  that  he  checked  the  bills,  to  show  that  the  articles  had  been 
received,  but  that  the  prices  affixed  were  not  subject  to  his  revision. 
"  This  duty,"  the  witness  states,  "  is  especially  one  belonging  to  the  audi- 
tor, Mr.  Fleming,  as  I  consider,  and  as  the  practice  has  been" 

The  testimony  of  this  witness  is  also  referred  to  to  show  that  his  check 
on  bills  for  stationery  charged  to  his  office  was  not  invariably  required  by 
the  auditor,  to  authorize  their  payment  and  that  nine  bills,  amounting  in 
the  whole  to  $1,210  95,  weie  paid  by  the  auditor  without  his  check,  and 
that  he  had  no  knowledge  whatever  of  the  existence  of  these  bills.  Thus 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  testimony  of  four  witnesses,  intimately  connected 
with  the  custom-house  in  the  supply  and  consumption  of  stationery,  con- 
tradicts, in  express  terms,  the  evidence  given  by  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor, 
and  the  letter  addressed  by  him  to  the  colleector,  both  in  respect  to  the 
orders  given  for  stationery  and  the  person  whose  duty  it  was  to  regulate 
the  charges  contained  in  the  bills  rendered.  But,  taking  the  whole  evidence 
together,  the  singular  anomaly  is  presented,  of  an  immense  expenditure  of 
the  public  money,  made  for  the  avowed  purpose  of  supplying  the  custom- 
house, while  the  articles  furnished  are  subjected  to  no  revision  as  to  prices, 
either  by  the  auditor,  whose  particular  duty  it  would  seem  to  be,  or  by  the 
head  of  the  department  of  the  custom-house  to  whom  they  were  furnished. 
This  startling  fact  may  in  some  measure  account,  both  for  the  large  amount 
expended  under  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  the  enormity  of  the  charges,  which  have 
been  adverted  to  in  a  previous  part  of  this  report. 

Mr.  Fleming  swears  that  he  did  not  order  stationery,  except  for  his  own 
office ;  that  he  paid  no  bills  without  the  check  of  the  head  of  the  depart- 
ment for  whose  use  the  articles  were  ordered,  by  the  person  filling  that 
office  ;  those  stationers  who  supplied  nearly  the  whole  of  the  stationery  for 
the  custom-house  testify  that  all,  or  nearly  all,  of  the  supplies  which  they 
furnished  were  ordered  by  Mr.  Fleming ;  and  Mr.  Wetmore,  the  public 
storekeeper,  proves  that  a  large  amount  paid  for  stationery,  and  charged  to 
his  office,  was  paid  on  bills  which  he  did  not  check,  and  of  which  he  had 
no  knowledge.  The  weight  of  evidence  is  clearly  against  the  veracity  and 
integrity  of  Mr.  Fleming,  who  filled  the  office  of  auditor  during  the  whole 
term  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  is  still  continued  in  office  by  Mr.  Curtis,  the  present 
collector.  The  statements  of  Mr.  Fleming  are  still  further  contradicted  by 
the  vouchers  which  he  in  his  official  character  has  furnished,  under  oath, 
to  the  commissioners. 

The  accounts  and  vouchers,  under  the  preceding  head  of  expenditures 
at  the  custom-house,  of  Edward  Curtis,  so  far  as  they  have  been  furnished 
to  the  commissioners,  will  be  examined  in  a  subsequent  part  of  this  report. 

The  following  is  the  average  statement  of  the  amount  paid  for  stationery 
during  the  whole  term,  commencing  with  the  year  1825,  to  the  close  of 
Jonathan  Thompson's  term  of  service  as  collector,  and  running  through  the 


24 


Rep.  No.  669. 


whole  period  of  Mr.  Swartwout's  term,  and  also  that  of  Jesse  Hoyt  and  J. 
J.  Morgan,  bringing  the  whole  expenditure  down  to  the  date  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  Edward  Curtis : 


Stationery  for  - 
Do  - 

Do  .... 
Do  .... 

IS25 
1826 
1S27 
1S2S 

$3,333  64 
2,772  88 
3,640  44 
3,237  46 

12,984  42 

Annual  average  ... 

— 

§3,246  10£ 

Stationery  for  -          -          -  - 

1829 

3,540  24 

Do           -  - 

1830 

5,676  44 

Do           ...  . 

1831 

6,259  11 

Do  .... 

1832 

7,980  62 

Do  - 

1  o  o  o 
1833 

9,o7o  16 

Do  .... 

1834 

5,076  67 

Do  - 

1835 

4,603  58 

Do           .          .  - 

1836 

6,042  92 

Do  - 

1837 

5,497  01 

54,352  75 

Annual  average  - 

— 

-■ 

6,039  191 

Stationery  for  1st  quarter 

1S3S 

1,082  25 

Annual  average  - 

4,329  00 

Stationery  for  2d,  3d,  and  4th  quarters  - 

loJo 

Q  A  Q "7  Kf\ 
o,4o  /  OU 

Do  .... 

1839 

17,780  87 

Do  .... 

1840 

16,713  16 

Do          1st  quarter 

1S41 

8,721  69 

51,703  22 

Annual  average  - 

17,234  40 

The  above  statement  may  be  referred  to  as  constituting  a  pretty  accurate 
specimen  of  the  various  expenditures  at  the  custom-house  for  the  whole 
period  included. 

The  result  of  the  entire  expense  of  collecting  the  revenue 
for  the  same  time  will  be  found  in  the  annexed  general 
abstract,  certified  by  the  Register  of  the  Treasury,  and 
the  comparative  statement  drawn  from  that  document, 
by  which  it  will  appear  that,  for  the  four  years  of  Mr. 
Thompson,  the  amount  of  revenue  collected  was         -  §54,255,145  13 


Rep.  JNo.  669. 


23 


At  an  average  expense,  per  annum,  of   -  $194,744  25* 

Or  at  the  rate  of  about    -----     l-*?^  per  cent. 

The  number  of  officers  of  every  description  is  reported  by  the  Register 
to  have  been  142,  and  by  the  auditor  of  the  custom-house  at  159,  for  the 
year  1825.  For  the  succeeding  three  years,  the  number  of  officers,  of  every 
description,  employed  by  the  collector,  was  :  158  for  the  year  1826, 155  for 
the  year  1827,  163  for  the  year  1828  ;  and,  as  reported  by  the  auditor,  166r 
160,  and  169,  for  the  same  years.  No  reason  has  been  given  for  the  dis- 
crepancy in  these  reports,  and  the  same  irregularity,  as  to  the  number  of 
officers  employed  by  the  collector,  will  be  found  in  each  year  of  Mr.  Swart- 
wout's  term,  and  also  in  that  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  to  the  end  of  his  term  of 
service. 

Mr.  Swartwout,  it  will  appear,  remained  in  office  about 
the  period  of  nine  years,  during  which  the  revenue  col- 
lected amounted  to        -  $127,62S,210  66 
At  an  average  expense  of  collection,  per  annum,  of        -        378,857  8S 
Or  at  the  rate  of  -          -          -          -          -          -    2TVo  per  cent. 


The  whole  number  of  officers  employed  by  Mr.  Swartwout,  as  certified 
by  the  Register,  is  as  follows  : 


Year. 

Register's  re- 

Auditor's re- 

port. 

port. 

1829  ------ 

199 

210 

1830  ------ 

215 

227 

1831  ------ 

243 

260 

1832  ------ 

269 

290 

1833  ------ 

328 

349 

1S34 

334 

356 

1835  ------ 

327 

347 

1836  ------ 

321 

412 

1837  ------ 

407 

424 

The  amount  of  revenue  collected  during  the  time  of  Mr. 

Hoyt  was         -  -$32,021,829  69 

At  an  average  expense,  per  annum,  of    -  -  -        554,702  33 

Or  at  the  average  rate  of-  -  -  -  -520  per  cent. 


The  whole  number  of  officers  employed  by  Mr.  Hoyt  is  as  follows  ; 


Register's  re- 
port. 

Auditor's  re- 
port. 

For  the  year  1S3S  - 

487 

464 

Do  1839 

4S1 

498 

Do  1840 

470 

479 

i 

26 


Rep.  No.  669. 


From  the  foregoing  tables,  it  will  be  seen  that  Jonathan 
Thompson,  in  first  year  of  his  collectorship,  received 
into  the  custom-house  duties  to  the  amount  of  -  §15,754,827  54 

At  an  expense  of  collection  of     -  211,471  87 

Or  at  the  rate  of  -  -  -  -  -  -    1T3_4^  per  cent. 

And  employed  the  services  of  officers,  of  all  descriptions, 

to  the  number  of  142 

Passing  over  the  intervening  years,  down  to  the  year 
1840,  it  appears  that  Jesse  Hoyt  received  at  the  custom- 
house duties  to  the  amount  of  -  -  -  -   $7,591,760  95 

At  an  expense  of  collection  of  -  -  -        563,829  39 

Or  at  the  rate  of  -  -  -  -  -  -    1~q  per  cent. 

And  employed  the  services  of  officers,  of  all  dercriptions, 

to  the  number  of  470 

Thus,  by  regular  advances  in  the  expense  of  collecting  the  revenue  at 
this  port,  between  the  year  1S25  and  the  year  1840,  it  appears  that  at  the 
latter  period,  compared  with  the  former,  the  increased  expenditure  may  be 
estimated  at  about  five  hundred  and  fifty  per  cent.  It  further  appears, 
that  the  increase  of  officers  employed  in  the  collection  of  the  revenue  at 
the  same  period  was  three  hundred  and  thirty  seven  per  cent.;  so  that,  as 
the  amount  of  duties  received  into  the  custom-house  has  diminished,  the 
expense  of  collection  has  risen  in  a  much  greater  ratio,  and  the  number  of 
officers  employed  in  its  collection  has  increased  in  about  the  same  propor- 
tjon. 

Some  allowance,  it  is  true,  may  be  made  for  this  increase  of  officers,  on 
the  ground  of  free  goods  admitted  since  the  act  of  1833  ;  but  the  following 
table  will  exhibit  the  amount  of  imports  and  exports  into  the  port  of  New 
York  for  the  period  of  three  years,  taking  one  year  of  the  collectorship  of 
Jonathan  Thompson,  one  year  of  Samuel  Swartwout,  and  one  year  of  Jesse 
Hoyt,  which  shows,  between  the  years  1S25  and  1S40,  an  increase  of  a 
fraction  under  three  millions  in  value  of  imports  and  exports,  or  less  than 
four  per  cent.;  which  falls  far  short  of  a  reasonable  justification  for  the 
vast  increase  of  officers  which  were  employed  at  these  periods  in  the  col- 
lection of  the  revenue : 


Imports,  1825  -  $50,024,973 

Exports,  1825  -  34,032,279 


Imports,  1S40  - 
Exports,  1840  -  30,1S6,470 


$S4,057,252 
S7,032,394 


Less  imports  and  exports  in  1825  than  in  1840       -  -  $2,975,142 

These  tables  are  presented  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Government  to 
this  subject,  and  to  elicit  further  investigations  into  it,  with  a  view  to  such 
reforms  as  may  lead  to  a  more  economical  system  for  the  collection  of  the 
revenue,  which  seems  to  be  demanded  by  every  consideration  connected 
with  the  public  interest. 

The  next  branch  of  expenditures  at  the  custom-house  to  be  examined 
is  the  rent  of  % 


Rep.  No.  668. 


27 


PUBLIC  STORES  AND  STORAGE. 

It  appears  that  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York  has,  for  a  number 
•of  years  past,  rented  on  his  own  account,  all  the  public  stores  necessary  for 
the  storage  and  safe  keeping  of  merchandise  imported  from  foreign  coun- 
tries ;  that  all  charges  for  storage  have  been  received  by  the  collector,  and, 
after  paying  the  rent  accruing  on  each  of  these  stores,  the  overplus  has  been 
considered  an  emolument  belonging  to  the  collector,  for  which  he  lias  not 
been  held  accountable  to  the  Treasury.  The  surplus  storage  thus  received 
by  Jonathan  Thompson  and  Samuel  Swartwout  is  not  known  ;  no  evi- 
dence having  been  given  in  relation  thereto.  But  the  practice  has  been 
continued  by  Jesse  Hoyt  to  the  close  of  his  term  of  service  ;  and  the  ques- 
tion arises,  to  which  the  attention  of  the  undersigned  has  been  called, 
whether  this  source  of  income  to  the  collector  can  be  justified  under  the 
several  laws  relating  to  that  subject;  and,  if  not,  by  what  authority  the 
several  collectors  have  appropriated  the  proceeds  of  storage  to  their  own 
private  use  and  benefit  ? 

By  the  act  approved  March  2,  1799,  section  21,  it  is  provided,  among 
other  things  appertaining  to  the  duties  of  the  several  collectors,  that,  with 
the  approbation  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  each  collector  shall 
u  provide,  at  the  public  expense,  storehouses  for  the  safe  keeping  of  goods, 
and  such  scales,  weights,  and  measures,  as  may  be  necessary  ;"  and  by  the 
same  act,  section  51,  it  is  enacted,  "  that  all  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise, 
of  which  entry  shall  have  been  made  incomplete,  or  without  the  specifica- 
tion of  particulars,  either  for  want  of  the  original  invoice  or  invoices,  or 
Jor  any  other  cause,  or  which  shall  have  received  damage  during  the  voy- 
age, to  be  ascertained  by  the  proper  officers  of  the  port  or  district  in  which 
the  said  goods,  wares,  or  merchandises  shall  arrive,  shall  be  conveyed  to 
some  warehouse  or  storehouse,  to  be  designated  by  the  collector,  in  the 
parcels  or  packages  containing  the  same,  there  to  remain,  with  due  and  rea- 
sonable care,  at  the  expense  and  risk  of  the  owner  or  consignee,  under  the 
care  of  some  proper  officer,  until  the  particulars,  cost,  or  value,  as  the  case 
may.  require,  shall  have  been  ascertained,  either  by  the  exhibition  of  the 
original  invoice  or  invoices  thereof,  or  by  appraisement,  at  the  option  of 
the  owner,  importer,  or  consignee,  in  manner  hereafter  provided,  and  until 
the  duties  thereon  shall  have  been  paid  or  secured  to  be  paid,  and  a  permit 
granted  by  the  collector  for  the  delivery  thereof;"  and  by  the  same  act, 
section  56,  provisiou  is  made  for  the  safe  keeping, "  with  due  and  reason 
able  care,  at  the  charge  and  risk  of  the  owner  or  owners  thereof,  unclaimed 
goods,  which,  at  the  end  of  nine  months,  are  directed  to  be  sold  according 
to  the  provisions  of  the  act;  and  the  duties  and  all  charges  thereon  being 
deducted,  the  overplus,  if  any  there  be,  shall  be  paid  into  the  Treasury  of 
the  United  States,  for  the  use  of  the  owner  or  owners  ;  but  if  such  goods 
are  of  a  perishable  nature,  they  shall  be  sold  forthwith." 

The  foregoing  summary  comprises  the  substance  of  all  the  laws  relating 
to  the  powers  of  the  collectors  of  the  several  ports  of  the  United  States,  to 
provide  storehouses  for  the  safe  keeping  of  goods,  with  th^exception  of 
special  provisions  respecting  goods  detained  at  quarantine,  under  the  health 
laws  of  the  several  States,  prior  to  the  act  of  March  3,  1841. 

It  will  be  seen  that  the  whole  extent  of  the  power  conferred  on  the  col- 
lector is  to  provide,  with  the  approbation  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
"  at  the  public  expense,  storehouses  for  the  safe  keeping  of  goods."  No 


28 


Rep.  No.  6G9. 


authority  whatever  is  granted  to  any  collector,  either  express  or  implied, 
to  rent  storehouses  by  private  contract,  on  his  own  account,  and  receive 
the  overplus  of  storage,  after  paying  the  rent,  for  his  own  private  use.  Such 
a  power  is  inconsistent  with  the  phraseology  of  all  the  laws  on  the  subject,, 
which  speak  in  express  terms  of  public  storehouses  rented  "  at  the  public 
expense."  And  no  contract  made  by  a  collector  for  the  rent  of  any  store- 
house can  be  valid,  under  the  act  1799,  without  the  approbation  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  first  had  and  obtained. 

It  may  be  asked,  if  these  storehouses  could  be  rented  by  the  collector  on 
his  own  private  account,  and  for  his  own  benefit,  why  it  was  deemed  n3- 
cessary  by  the  Legislature  to  require  the  approbation  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  give  validity  to  any  contract  for  the  rent  of  such  storehouses  ? 

It  would  have  been  idle  to  make  such  a  provision  for  any  other  purpose 
than  to  guard  the  public  interest.  The  conclusion  would  seem  to  be  una- 
voidable, that  all  storehouses  rented  by  any  collector,  for  the  safe  keeping 
of  goods  imported  into  the  United  States,  are  public  storehouses  rented 
"  at  the  public  expense"  and  can  no  more  be  regarded  as  the  private 
property  of  the  collector  than  the  custom-house  in  which  he  transacts  his 
business. 

It  is  believed  that  this  practice  of  appropriating  the  receipts  for  storage  to 
the  use  of  the  collector,  after  the  rents  are  paid,  prevails  at  no  other  port  of 
entry  except  the  port  of  New  York.  It  has  no  foundation  in  law  to  sustain  it; 
and  under  whatsoever  pretext  it  may  have  been  tolerated  for  so  great  a  length 
of  time  at  the  Treasury  Department,  this  source  of  income  to  the  collector 
can  be  justified  on  no  principle  appertaining  to  his  office,  or  warranted  by 
the  laws  relating  to  the  collection  of  the  public  revenue.  But  the  practice, 
as  it  existed  under  the  late  collector,  Jesse  Hoyt.  requires  a  more  minute 
investigation  to  demonstrate  its  iniquity,  and  the  loss  sustained  by  the  Gov- 
ernment in  its  results.  To  justify  the  payment  of  storage  to  the  collector, 
when  it  exceeds  the  amount  of  the  rents,  it  is  alleged  that  the  Government 
has  at  no  time  looked  to  that  as  a  source  of  revenue ;  that  it  desires  only  to 
redeem  the  sums  paid  for  the  use  of  the  public  stores,  and  the  overplus  has 
been  considered  too  small  a  matter  to  attract  the  attention  of  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury.  If  this  be  true,  it  is  equally  correct  that  the  Government 
should  be  fully  indemnified  for  all  its  expenditures  at  these  stores,  before 
the  collector  should  be  permitted  to  appropriate  to  his  own  use  any  part  of 
the  storage,  on  the  ground  that  it  is  a  surplus.  The  following  statement 
will  place,  this  matter  in  a  clear  light  : 

The  rent  paid  by  the  Government  for  the  public  stores  in  Nassau  street 
is  $11,000;  of  this  sum,  no  part  is  restored  from  the  storage  of  goods,  al- 
though the  law  authorizing  them  expressly  requires  the  payment  of  all 
charges  by  the  owner  or  consignee,  before  the  goods  are  removed.  This 
provision  of  the  law  has  been  wholly  overlooked ;  and  all  merchandise  or- 
dered by  the  collector  to  the  public  stores,  for  examination  and  appraise- 
ment, is  delivered  without  the  payment  of  storage,  or  any  charge  whatever. 
How  far  this  practice  in  violation  of  law  ought  to  be  corrected,  is  respect- 
fully submittea^to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  But,  independent  of  the 
rent  of  these  stores,  and  the  enormous  expense  attending  them,  for  salaries 
to  officers  and  for  exorbitant  charges  on  the  labor  and  cartage  of  goods, 
which  has  heretofore,  in  the  space  of  three  years,  amounted  to  the  round 
sum  of  ninety-five  thousand  dollars,  besides  stationery,  for  which ,  in  the 
same  period,  for  the  use  of  three  clerks,  there  was  paid  to  Geo.  A.  Wasson, 


Bep.  No.  669. 


29 


the  public  storekeeper,  the  sum  of  $2,962  79,  there  remains  to  be  brought 
into  this  estimate  the  actual  expense  incurred  by  the  Government  at  the 
general  stores,  where  the  largest  portion  of  foreign  goods  imported  into 
the  port  of  New  York  are  stored. 

The  following  statement  will  show  the  amount  paid  by  the  Government 
at  these  general  stores  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  the  rent  paid  by  the 
collector  for  each  store.  By  the  testimony  of  Sidney  Wetmore,  the  store- 
keeper of  the  port,  it  appears  that  there  were  five  stores,  as  follows  : 


1  store,  109  Washington  street,  rented  of  F.  F.  Marbury,  at  -  $1,200 

1  store,  153  Greenwich  street,  rented  of  F.  F.  Marbury,  at  -  1,200 

1  store,  270  Water  street,  rented  of  R.  C.  Cornell,  at  -  1,S00 

1  store,  274  Front  street,  rented  of  J.  N.  Lord,  at  1,100 

1  store,  230  Cherry  street,  rented  of  R.  Barton,  at  1,000 


Total    -------  6,300 


This  sum  was  paid  by  the  storekeeper  out  of  the  receipts  for  storage,  and 
the  balance  passed  to  the  credit  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector,  on  private  ac- 
count. The  expense  incurred  by  the  Government  in  keeping  up  these 
stores,  exclusive  of  the  rent,  is — 

For  the  salary  of  the  storekeeper     -  $1,500  00 

For  clerk  hire  of  5  clerks,  at  $1,000  ...        5,000  00 

For  the  salaries  of  15  inspectors,  at  $1,095  -  16,425  00 

For  stationery  for  the  5  stores         -  2,721  48 

Making  an  aggregate  sum  of  25,646  4S 

This  estimate  of  the  annual  expenditure  at  these  stores  is  exclusive  of 
the  public  store  in  Nassau  street,  to  which  reference  has  heretofore  been 
made,  and  of  the  night  watch,  and  also  of  the  public  stores  in  Brooklyn 
and  at  Staten  Island.  From  these  latter  stores  no  account  has  been  ren- 
dered of  storage,  and  Mr.  Wetmore  states,  in  his  testimony,  that  the  store- 
keepers at  these  places  make  their  returns  directly  to  the  collector.  It  is 
worthy  of  remark,  that  the  public  store  at  Staten  Island  is  owned  by  the 
Government,  and  whatever  storage  may  have  been  received  from  the 
storekeeper  at  that  store  is  a  clear  gain  of  that  amount  to  the  collector 
who  pays  no  rent,  as  in  other  cases. 

The  result  of  the  whole  of  this  investigation  is,  that  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  col- 
lector, rented  five  stores  on  his  own  private  account,  in  direct  contraven- 
tion of  the  act  of  1799,  which  directs  that  they  shall  be  rented  "  at  the  pub- 
lic expense,"  with  the  approbation  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
From  this  violation  of  law,  he  has  accumulated  an  income,  during  his  offi- 
cial term  of  about  three  years,  of  the  sum  pf  $29,883  36,  which  will  be  great- 
ly increased  by  the  addition  of  the  storage  at  Brooklyn  and  Staten  Island 
while  the  Government  collected  for  him  this  income  at  an  annual  cost  as 
above  stated,  with  the  addition  of  the  salaries  of  three  storekeepers'  at 
Brooklyn  and  Staten  Island,  and  stationery  at  the  latter  place,  of  $29  294  24. 

In  this  sum  the  night  inspectors  are  not  included,  as  no  vouchers  have 
been  furnished  to  the  commissioners  to  show  the  amount  paid  for  this  class 


30 


Rep.  No.  669. 


of  officers  at  the  public  stores.  This  large  sum  received  by  the  late  collector, 
independent  of  his  salary,  which  it  would  seem,  both  in  law  and  equity, 
ought  to  have  been  applied  to  the  discharge  of  the  expenditures  incurred 
by  the  Government  in  providing  these  stores  with  a  sufficient  number  of 
officers  to  conduct  them,  and  the  incidental  expenses  of  these  officers,  con- 
stitutes but  a  small  item  in  the  vast  sums  drawn  by  Mr.  Hoyt  from  various 
sources,  and  appropriated  to  his  own  use,  which  will  constitute  the  subject 
of  investigation  hereafter. 

The  attention  of  the  commissioners  having  been  drawn  to  the  subject  of 
these  receipts,  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  on  account  of  storage,  and  also  the  fact  having 
been  disclosed,  in  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Wetmore,  that,  after  Mr  Hoyt  left 
office,  he,  as  the  public  storekeeper,  had  collected  considerable  sums  of  out- 
standing storage  on  goods  put  in  store  before  the  expiration  of  Mr.  Hoyt's 
term  of  service,  they  addressed  a  letter  to  the  present  collector,  under  date 
of  August  25, 1S41,  in  which  it  was  suggested  that  all  further  payments  to 
Mr.  Hoyt,  by  the  storekeeper  or  any  other  officer  of  the  customs,  on  ac- 
count of  his  claim  to  storage,  should  be  discontinued.  Notwithstanding 
this  letter  of  the  commissioners,  Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector,  has  continued  to 
allow  the  money  drawn  from  these  collections  to  be  paid  over  by  Mr. 
Wetmore  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  up  to  November  1,  1841.  The  sums  thus  paid 
since  Mr.  Curtis  came  into  office  amount  in  the  whole  to  $1,121  23.  On 
the  3d  day  of  September,  1S41,  Mr.  Curtis  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Hoff- 
man, the  district  attorney  of  the  United  Slates,  asking  his  opinion  upon  the 
subject  of  these  payments,  enclosing  to  him  a  copy  of  the  letter  of  the  com- 
missioners. It  would  seem  that,  in  the  regular  course  of  official  duty,  this 
opinion  ought  to  have  been  sought  by  Mr.  Curtis  from  the  Solicitor  of  the 
Treasury,  inasmuch  as  the  district  attorney  is  limited  in  his  duties  to  cases 
depending  in  the  district  and  circuit  courts  of  the  United  States ;  and  it  is  the 
particular  duty  of  the  Solicitor  to  settle  all  legal  doubts  of  the  collector  on 
questions  relating  to  his  official  duties.  But  the  district  attorney,  under 
date  of  September  4,  in  reply  to  the  letter  of  the  collector,  gives  to  him  a 
written  opinion:  in  which,  without  referring  to  the  laws  of  Congress  re- 
lating to  the  subject,  he  makes  the  usage  of  the  collectors  of  the  customs  at 
this  port  the  foundation  of  his  opinion.  He  says,  among  othar  things,  that 
prior  to  the  act  of  the  3d  March,  1S41,  "  it  was  the  usage,  long  recognised 
by  the  Department,  at  this  port,  for  the  collector  to  provide  all  the  stores 
for  storing  merchandise  at  his  own  private  cost  and  charge,  and  the  labor 
bestowed  upon  the  goods  stored  was  also  at  his  charge.  If  the  storage  of 
goods  amounted  to  more  than  the  rent  and  expense  of  the  labor,  the  profits 
were  his;  and  if,  on  the  other  hand,  the  amount  received  for  storage  was 
not  sufficient  to  remunerate  him  for  his  expenditures,  the  loss  would  be  his ; 
the  Government  losing  all  profit,  but  at  the  same  time  being  saved  harm- 
less from  all  loss." 

From  these  premises  the  district  attorney  draws  the  conclusion  that  the 
storage  "collected,  or  to  be  collected,  for  storing  goods  in  his  own  stores, 
became  a  private  debt,  due  to  him."  It  is  evident  that  the  learned  counsel, 
in  drawing  out  his  opinion,  did  so  hastily,  and  without  that  strict  examina- 
tion of  the  laws  of  Congress  which  would  doubtless  have  brought  his  mind 
to  a  different  conclusion.  The  usage  referred  to,  and  taken  for  granted  by 
the  district  attorney,  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the  act  of  1799,  and  to  all 
the  subsequent  acts  relating  to  the  storage  of  goods;  which  laws  expressly 
provide  that  the  public  stores  shall  be  rented  "  at  the  public  expense."  But 


Rep.  No.  669. 


31 


the  idea  is  still  more  absurd,  that  the  collector  is  bound  to  pay  for  all  the 
labor  necessary  to  carry  on  these  stores,  and  to  bear  the  loss,  if  the  amount 
of  storage  should  fall  short  of  the  rents  and  incidental  expenses.  The  fact 
is,  and  so  is  the  law,  the  collector  bears  no  part  of  the  expense  incurred  at 
these  stores;  and  if  the  storage  should  not  be  sufficient  to  pay  the  rents,  the 
collector  would  undoubtedly  turn  round  and  say  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  that  the  deficiency  must  be  made  good  by  the  Government;  for 
the  plain  reason,  that  the  law  directs  all  public  stores  to  be  rented  at  the 
public  expense.  But  if  a  profit  accrues,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  dis- 
trict attorney,  it  becomes  ipso  facto  the  private  property  of  the  collector. 
This  may  be  very  plausible,  but  it  is  not  law. 

This  abuse  has  been  in  part  corrected  by  the  act  of  the  3d  March,  1S41 ; 
but  the  claim  of  Mr.  Hoyt  to  more  than  thirty  thousand  dollars,  which  has 
gone  into  his  pockets  for  storage  during  his  term  of  office,  collected  at  an 
expense  of  ninety  thousand  dollars  by  the  Government,  may  well  be  con- 
tested, and  ought  to  be  the  subject  of  judicial  decision. 

The  manner  in  which  these  public  stores  have  been  conducted,  with  the 
full  knowledge  of  the  Government  at  Washington,  in  direct  violation  of 
law,  must  strike  every  candid  mind  with  astonishment.  In  the  first  act  of 
Congress  authorizing  the  collector  to  rent  such  places  of  deposite  for  the 
safe  keeping  of  foreign  merchandise  imported  into  the  United  States,  pass- 
ed on  the  2d  of  March,  1799,  they  were  denominated  public  ;  usage  has 
converted  them  into  private  property.  In  the  same  act  the  collector  is  re- 
quired to  obtain  the  approbation  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  give 
validity  to  any  contract  for  the  rent  of  storehouses  u  at  the  public  expensed 
Did  Mr.  Hoyt  seek  or  obtain  such  approbation  before  he  rented  the  five 
several  stores  on  his  own  private  account  and  for  his  own  benefit?  He 
did  not.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  required  to  fix  the  rate  of  stor- 
age. Has  he  performed  that  duty  ?  We  have  no  evidence  that  he  has 
given  any  order  on  the  subject. 

Thus  the  laws  are  set  at  defiance,  and  the  whole  subject  left  open  to  the 
arbitrary  discretion  of  the  collector,  who  has  seized  the  opportunity  to^add 
to  his  income  ten  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  without  cost  or  risk  ;  while 
the  Government,  at  an  annual  expense  of  more  than  thirty  thousand  dol- 
lars, supplies  storekeepers,  clerks,  inspectors,  night  watch,  books,  printing, 
and  stationery,  to  carry  on  these  private  stores  ;  and  the  surplus  of  storage 
is,  by  the  force  of  usage,  and  against  law,  appropriated  by  Mr.  Hoyt  to  his 
own  use. 

The  plainest  dictates  of  justice,  without  the  aid  of  legislation,  would  seem 
to  demand  that  the  receipts  from  storage  should  be  applied  to  meet  the  ex- 
pense of  these  establishments ;  and  this  was  the  manifest  intention  of  the 
law,  under  the  authority  of  which  the  system  went  into  operation. 

Connected  with  the  subject  of  storehouses  and  storage,  the  evidence  re- 
lating to  the  sale  of  the  goods  saved  from  the  burning  of  the  public  store  in 
Front  street  will  be  noticed,  with  the  circumstances  attending  this  transac- 
tion, presented  in  general  terms,  according  to  the  facts  proved  before  the 
commissioners.  The  result  of  this  sale  will  appear  from  the  following  re- 
port of  the  auditor  of  the  custom-house,  to  which  is  appended  the  receipt 
of  Mr.  Wetmore,  the  public  storekeeper. 


32 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Statement  of  sales  of  goods  saved  from  the  fire  at  public  store  No.  261 
Front  street,  {referred  to  in  the  testimony  of  John  A.  Fleming.) 

Amount  of  sales  -  -  -  -  -  $9,918  00 

Do       do    -  -  -  -  -  12,711  50 

 $22,629  50 

Commissions,  2\ per  cent.  ...       555  74 

Cartage,  labor,  &c.         -  -  -  -         15  00 

Advertising       -  -  -  ••  -         19  59 

Storekeeper's  bill  -  2,100  00 

  2,700  33 


Nett  proceeds  paid  by  auctioneers,  Feb.  1840  -  19,929  17 


JOHN  A.  FLEMING,  Auditor. 

Custom-House,  New  York, 

June  12,  1S41. 

Copy  of  storekeeper's  bill,  charged  in  account  of  sales  of  goods  saved  from 
fire  at  public  store,  No.  261  Front  street. 

Sales  of  burnt  goods  to  public  store,  Dn. 

To  storage  and  expenses  on  goods  rescued  from  the  fire,  261 

Front  street        -  -  $2,100  00 

Received  payment  in  full. 

S.  WETMORE, 
Storekeeper,  Custom-House. 

New  York,  February  20,  1840. 

The  history  of  all  the  transactions  of  the  custom-house  officers,  acting 
under  the  orders  of  the  collector,  as  well  in  securing  and  packing  the  goods 
preserved  from  the  fire,  whether  damaged  or  not,  and  the  manner  in  which 
the  sale  was  conducted,  will  fully  appear  in  the  testimony  taken  and  re- 
corded, and  to  which  reference  is  made.  The  witnesses  examined  were 
numerous,  and  the  testimony  given  by  them  excursive  and  elaborate,  con- 
stituting more  matter,  both  relevant  and  irrelevant,  than  could  be  conve- 
niently incorporated  in  this  report.  This  testimony  discloses  a  tissue  of 
official  perfidy  and  fraud  of  the  most  disgraceful  character,  from  the  com- 
mencement to  the  close  of  the  auction  sale  of  these  goods.  Without  en- 
tering into  details,  which  would  be  tedious  and  unprofitable,  a  summary 
of  the  leading  facts  testified  to  by  the  witnesses  will  be  sufficiently  compre- 
hensive to  embrace  all  that  is  essential  to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Gov- 
ernment to  this  matter. 

On  the  night  of  the  fire  in  Front  street,  by  which  the  public  store  situ- 
ated in  that  street  was  consumed,  with  its  contents,  the  custom-house  offi- 
cers who  were  designated  by  the  collector  to  take  possession  of  the  rem- 
nant of  goods  saved  from  the  conflagration  had  express  orders  to  admit 
no  person  to  examine  the  goods;  so  that  the  claimants  were  deprived  of  an 
opportunity  of  selecting  such  parcels  as  they  could  identify  and  claim  as  a 
part  of  their  importations,  and  separate  them  from  the  general  mass  thrown 
together  by  the  officers  of  the  customs  who  had  charge  of  them.  On  the 
same  night,  or  the  following  morning,  the  goods  were  removed  to  an  open 
lot,  used  as  a  coal  yard,  where  they  were  prepared  in  heaps  or  lots  for  sale, 


Rep.  No.  669. 


33 


by  certain  officers  of  the  customs  selected  by  the  collector  for  that  purpose. 
From  this  lot  all  persons  were  excluded,  and  especially  the  claimants  of 
the  goods,  who  applied  for  permission  to  examine  the  parcels,  and  desig- 
nate such  as  might  belong  to  them  ;  which  was  refused,  and,  during  the 
preparation  of  the  goods  for  sale,  only  one  or  two  persons  were  admitted 
within  the  enclosure,  and  they  by  the  special  permission  of  the  collector, 
who  were  also  allowed  to  carry  off  a  part  of  the  goods,  on  a  mere  allega- 
tion that  they  were  the  owners  of  the  goods  so  carried  off.  These  persons 
appear  to  have  been  favorites  of  the  collector,  as  all  other  claimants  were 
strictly  prohibited  from  entering  the  enclosure.  Thus  the  goods  were  se- 
cretly arranged  for  auction,  without  the  knowledge  of  any  other  person  or 
persons  than  those  employed  in  the  business,  so  that  it  became  impossible 
for  bidders  to  know  the  good  from  the  bad  lots;  many  of  the  pieces  being 
sound,  or  nearly  so,  while  the  largest  portion  were  damaged  to  an  extent 
which  rendered  them  entirely  worthless.  It  appears,  in  evidence,  that  some 
individuals,  during  the  time  the  laborers  were  engaged  in  making  up  the 
heaps,  preparatory  to  the  auction,  took  a  position  in  the  third  story  of  an 
adjoining  building,  from  which  they  could  observe  the  manner  in  which 
the  heaps  were  arranged.  The  custom-house  officers  within  the  enclosure, 
finding  that  they  were  observed,  and  the  manner  of  putting  up  the  heaps 
or  lots  was  discovered,  so  that  no  advantage  could  be  taken  at  the  sales  by 
themselves  and  their  friends,  from  the  exclusive  knowledge  they  possessed 
of  the  value  of  the  different  heaps  or  lots,  set  to  work  forthwith,  in  the  night 
time,  and  rearranged  the  goods  in  a  manner  well  calculated  to  deceive  the 
persons  who  had  detected  them,  and  others  to  whom  their  information 
might  be  communicated. 

The  first  sales  took  place  on  the  7th  February,  1840.  At  this  sale,  the 
inferior  goods,  or  those  most  damaged,  were  offered.  The  sale  went  off 
quietly,  because  those  in  the  secret  knew  the  goods  to  be  worthless,  and, 
of  course,  there  was  but  little  competition  from  that  quarter.  The  bidders 
who  attended  the  sale  to  purchase  for  their  own  use  were  deceived  in  the 
quality  and  condition  of  the  goods  by  a  great  variety  of  expedients,  resort- 
ed to  by  the  custom-house  officers  to  mislead  them.  Among  other  expe- 
dients, damaged  goods,  which  were  of  no  value,  were  enclosed  in  an  en- 
velope of  the  finest  description  of  cloths,  perfectly  sound  and  uninjured. 
Thus,  the  purchaser,  supposing  he  had  obtained  a  good  article,  on  opening 
the  piece,  to  examine  its  contents  and  quality,  found,  to  his  utter  astonish- 
ment, that  the  interior  was  filled  up  with  damaged  goods,  of  no  value  what- 
ever. The  deceptions  were  numerous  at  this  sale,  but  these  will  serve  to 
show  their  general  character.  The  purchasers  were  so  grossly  deceived 
in  their  purchases,  that  it  was  believed  by  the  custom-house  officers  that 
they  would  not  venture  to  bid  at  the  second  sale,  for  which  the  most  val- 
uable portion  of  the  goods  saved  from  the  fire  were  reserved.  This  sec- 
ond sale  took  place  on  the  14th  February,  1840,  one  week  after  the  first 
sale ;  but  it  is  evident  that  the  whole  might  have  been  disposed  of  at  the 
same  time,  if  it  had  been  so  ordered  by  the  collector.  The  frauds  prac- 
tised at  this  sale  transcended  by  far  those  which  had  been  discovered  at  the 
first  sale. 

It  will  be  seen,  by  a  recurrence  to  the  testimony  of  numerous  witnesses, 
that  the  heaps  or  lots  were  so  arranged  that  no  bidder  who  had  not  seen 
the  manner  in  which  they  were  put  up  could  form  any  idea  of  their  rela- 
tive value,  this  being  known  only  to  the  custom-house  officers  and  those 
3 


34 


Rep.  No.  669. 


who  were  combined  with  them.  The  best  heaps  or  lots  were  covered  with 
damaged  goods,  and  the  inferior  or  worthless  parcels  had  on  the  outside 
whole  pieces  of  sound  goods,  or  nearly  sound,  having  received  but  little 
injury  from  the  fire.  They  were  surrounded  by  armed  men,  belonging  to 
the  custom-house,  who  forcibly  resisted  every  attempt  made  by  persons 
who  desired  to  purchase  to  examine  the  heaps  or  lots,  or  even  to  touch  any 
part  of  the  goods.  In  one  instance,  a  person  present  drew  from  under  a 
heap  of  goods  apparently  damaged  a  piece  of  sound  cloth,  which  had  re- 
ceived no  injury.  He  immediately  proclaimed  to  the  other  bidders  the  fact, 
and  pronounced  the  sale  a  fraudulent  one,  and  called  on  the  officers  super- 
intending the  sale,  demanding  that  the  heap  or  lot  from  which  he  had  drawn 
the  piece  of  sound  goods  should  be  offered  again  for  sale.  This  was  re- 
fused, and  a  riot  and  confusion  ensued,  which  was  quieted  only  by  the  in- 
terposition of  the  civil  authorities.  Alderman  Purdy,  who  was  called  to 
suppress  the  riot,  stated  to  the  persons  present  that  the  sale  was  a  shameful 
one,  but  that  violence  could  not  prevent  it.  The  result  of  this  sale,  ac- 
cording to  all  the  evidence,  except  that  of  one  or  two  of  the  guilty  custom- 
house officers,  was  that  every  valuable  heap  or  lot  was  bid  off  by  these 
officers  or  their  accomplices,  while  great  losses  were  sustained  by  those 
bidders  who  were  not  in  the  secret. 

John  D.  Phillips,  a  witness,  who  attended  these  sales,  testifies  that  "Mr. 
Caspar  Marks,  a  dealer  in  dry  goods,  purchased  a  lot  at  two  hundred  dol- 
lars or  thereabouts,  being  one  of  those  lots  in  which  no  perceptible  differ- 
ence could  be  discovered,  and  next  to  or  near  to  some  of  those  lots  which 
brought  about  thirty  or  forty  dollars.  On  the  day  following  the  sale,  meet- 
ing Mr.  Marks  in  Pearl  street,  I  mentioned  the  circumstance  to  him,  and 
asked  him  how  he  liked  the  bargain.  "  Oh  !"  said  he,  "  I  knew  what  I  was 
about;  but  my  information  cost  me  a  hundred  or  a  hundred  and  fifty  dol- 
lars;" and,  from  further  remarks,  he  (Mr.  Marks)  gave  rne  to  understand 
that  he  had  bought  in  collusion,  or  with  an  understanding  that  some  cus- 
tom-house officer,  who  was  in  the  secret  as  to  the  arrangement  of  the  goods, 
was  to  share  in  the  bargain."  The  same  witness  states  his  opinion,  that  if 
the  goods  had  been  fairly  sold  at  the  second  sale,  they  would  have  brought 
ten  thousand  dollars,  at  least,  more  than  the  sum  for  which  they  were 
sold. 

James  M.  Oakley,  a  custom-house  officer,  who  was  the  principal  super- 
intendent at  these  sales,  in  answer  to  an  inquiry,  whether  "  any  officer  of 
the  customs,  either  in  his  own  name  or  by  the  intervention  of  another  per- 
son, purchased  any  goods  at  this  sale,"  testifies :  "  I  know  nothing  on  this 
subject  except  from  rumor ;  there  was  a  report  to  that  effect,  but  I  have  no 
knowledge  as  to  its  truth."  This  same  custom-house  officer,  at  a  subse- 
quent day,  offered  for  sale,  at  his  own  house,  to  Michael  Levy,  more  than 
one  hundred  yards  of  a  cloth  which  Mr.  Levy  testifies  was  a  part  of  the 
cloth  sold  at  the  auction  of  burned  goods,  which  he  declined  to  purchase, 
in  consequence  of  its  having  been  wet  and  wrinkled.  Mr.  Oakley  stated  to 
him  that  he  u  had  had  a  coat  from  it,  and  would  have  a  cloak  made  from  it 
for  his  wife,  and  retain  the  whole,  rather  than  sell  it  for  less  than  three  hun- 
dred dollars."  This  is  a  sample  of  the  verity  of  the  custom-house  officers 
called  to  testify  concerning  these  sales,  and  of  the  estimate  which  ought  to 
be  placed  on  their  statements. 

Most  of  the  witnesses  testify  that  the  goods  were  intentionally  arranged 
so  as  to  deceive  bidders ;  and,  in  many  instances,  heaps  or  lots  of  the  same 


Rep.  No.  669. 


35 


external  appearance  were  bid  off,  some  of  them  at  from  two  to  three  hun- 
dred dollars,  and  others,  adjoining  to  them,  apparently  equally  valuable,, 
went  off  at  from  forty  to  ninety  dollars.  After  the  sale,  Michael  Levy,  one 
of  the  witnesses,  saw  a  lot  of  fourteen  pieces  of  fine  cloth,  which  had  been 
taken  to  Brooklyn  to  be  cleansed,  which  he  had  no  doubt  was  a  part  of  the 
goods  bought  at  this  sale  by  a  man  of  the  name  of  Harrison,  who  was  be- 
lieved to  be  connected  with  the  custom-house  officers.  On  the  whole,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  most  of  the  valuable  goods,  and  those  which  had  sus- 
tained the  least  injury,  were  purchased  by  custom-house  officers,  either  in 
their  own  names  or  in  the  names  of  other  persons ;  which  opinion  is  en- 
forced by  the  declaration  of  Caspar  Marks,  who  informed  Mr.  Phillips  that 
he  had  made  good  bargains,  but  that  his  information  had  cost  him  from  one 
hundred  to  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars. 

While  this  fraudulent  sale  was  progressing,  a  deputation  was  sent  to 
Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector,  to  inform  him  of  the  fact  that  the  sale  was  un- 
fairly conducted.  Mr.  Phillips,  who  was  charged  with  this  duty,  reported 
that  Mr.  Hoyt  treated  his  application  with  marked  indifference,  and  utterly 
refused  to  interfere  in  the  matter.  It  is  also  in  evidence,  that  the  officers 
and  laborers  engaged  in  securing  and  preparing  these  goods  for  sale  tore 
off  from  the  sound  pieces  of  cloth  the  marks  and  ends  by  which  alone  they 
could  be  identified  by  the  owner ;  and,  at  the  close  of  the  sale,  no  pur- 
chaser was  permitted  to  enter  the  yard  and  receive  his  goods,  but  they 
were  delivered  at  the  entrance  of  the  enclosure  ;  and,  whether  they  belong- 
ed to  the  heaps  or  lots  purchased,  or  not,  it  was  impossible  for  any  pur- 
chaser to  know,  as  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  officers  or  laborers  within  the 
enclosure  to  change  the  pieces  at  pleasure. 

From  the  proceeds  of  these  sales  it  appears,  by  the  statement  of  the 
auditor,  hereinbefore  referred  to,  that,  for  expenses,  including  a  charge  for 
storage — when,  in  fact,  the  goods  were  not  stored  after  the  fire — there  was 
paid  to  Mr.  Hoyt  the  sum  of  $2,100  on  his  own  private  account,  according 
to  usage,  and  on  the  20th  February,  1840,  there  was  also  paid  to  him,  as 
collector  of  this  port,  to  be  placed  in  the  Treasury,  for  the  benefit  of  the 
owners  of  these  goods,  the  sum  of  $19,929  17;  which  sum,  nor  any  parfc 
thereof,  was  not  at  any  time  paid  into  the  Treasury,  but  the  whole  amount 
thereof  was  appropriated  by  Mr.  Hoyt  to  his  own  use,  and  iiominally 
passed  to  the  credit  of  the  Government  in  the  last  quarter  of  his  term  of 
service,  ending  on  the  31st  of  March,  1841,  more  than  one  year  after  it 
had  been  received  by  him.  The  claimants  of  the  goods  applied  for  an 
equitable  division  of  the  proceeds  of  these  sales,  according  to  the  loss  sus- 
tained by  each,  at  the  burning  of  the  public  store  in  which  they  were 
deposited.  This  was  denied  to  them  by  the  collector,  who,  in  a' corres- 
pondence with  Mr.  Woodbury,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  received  an 
order  from  the  Department  not  only  to  refuse  this  equitable  division  of  the 
money  received  by  the  collector,  to  be  held  for  the  benefit  of  the  sufferers, 
but  he  obtained  from  that  high  officer  of  the  Government  positive  instruc- 
tions to  investigate,  by  all  the  means  within  his  reach,  the  invoice  price  of 
the  burned  goods,  and  to  demand  from  each  importer  the  full  amount  of 
duties  which  would  have  accrued  under  their  respective  invoices.  This 
Treasury  order  answered  all  the  purposes  of  the  collector,  because  it  de- 
terred any  owner  of  a  part  of  the  goods  rescued  from  the  building  from 
making  any  claim  on  his  individual  account,  as  it  would  subject  him  to  the 
operation  of  the  order  for  the  whole  amount  of  duties  accruing  on  his  im- 


26 


Rep.  No.  669. 


portation  5  and,  thereby,  Mr.  Hoyt  remained  in  the  undisturbed  possession 
of  the  money  arising  out  of  the  sales  of  these  goods,  without  the  fear  of  a 
demand  of  any  portion  of  it  from  any  one  of  the  sufferers  by  the  fire.  It 
stands  credited  to  the  Government,  it  is  true,  but  that  will  be  the  last  of  it. 

There  are  some  peculiar  facts  in  relation  to  the  loss  occasioned  by  this 
fire,  in  addition  to  those  narrated,  which  deserve  to  be  noticed.  The 
number  of  packages  in  the  public  store  at  the  time  it  was  consumed  was 
six  hundred  and  eighty  seven,  consisting  almost  entirely  of  woollen  goods 
of  British  manufacture.  Their  value  is  estimated  by  one  of  the  importers, 
who  had  a  full  knowledge  of  their  quality  and  amount,  at  about  one 
million  of  dollars.  It  appears,  by  the  evidence  of  John  Taylor,  jr.,  and 
John  Harris,  two  of  the  largest  importers,  that  these  woollens  would  have 
been  entered  at  the  custom-house,  and  the  duties  paid,  long  prior  to  the 
fire  by  which  they  were  destroyed,  but  that  the  importers  were  deterred 
from  entering  their  goods  by  the  arbitrary  system  of  seizures  which  had 
been  adopted  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector,  and  which  rendered  every  thing 
insecure  which  was  placed  within  the  grasp  of  his  power.  Many  of  these 
importers  offered  to  enter  their  goods  according  to  law,  and  to  subject  them 
to  appraisement,  so  as  to  avoid  the  risk  of  presenting  an  invoice,  which  at 
that  time  was  the  certain  precursor  of  seizure  and  compromise,  or  of  a  pro- 
tracted and  expensive  litigation,  which,  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  ended  in 
the  ruin  of  the  unfortunate  importers,  from  delay  and  interruption  in  their 
ordinary  pursuits.  But  this  offer  was  rejected  by  the  collector,  and,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  difficulties  and  embarrassments  thrown  in  the  way  of  for- 
eign commerce  in  woollen  fabrics,  this  large  amount  of  goods  remained  in 
store  until  they  were  consumed  by  the  fire,  as  above  stated.  The  loss  to 
the  importers,  thus  delayed  in  the  entry  of  their  goods,  was  entire ;  and 
the  loss  to  the  Government,  in  the  duties  which  might  have  been  collected 
on  a  fair  valuation  by  the  appraisers,  was  not  less  than  $400,000.  But  all 
this,  and  much  more  of  a  similar  character,  was  done  by  Jesse  Hoyt,  col- 
lector of  the  port  of  New  York,  under  the  deceptive  guise  of  a  patriotic 
devotion  to  the  public  interest,  and  an  ardent  desire,  in  the  discharge  of  his 
official  duties,  to  protect  the  public  revenue  from  frauds  and  evasions.  For 
a  more  particular  detail  of  what  occurred  in  relation  to  these  damaged 
goods,  saved  from  the  fire,  and  the  conduct  of  the  collector,  reference  is 
made  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  John  Harris.  Other  witnesses  have  testified 
on  the  subject,  but  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Harris  enters  more  at  large  into  all 
these  transactions:  and,  from  the  respectability  and  mercantile  intelligence 
of  the  witness,  his  statements  may  be  implicitly  relied  on. 

The  evidence  taken  on  the  subject  of  the  sale  of  goods  remaining  un- 
claimed for  the  space  of  nine  months  in  the  public  stores  will  next  be  ex- 
amined. The  following  table  will  exhibit,  for  the  years  183S,  1839,  and 
1840,  the  amount  of  the  appraised  value  of  goods  falling  under  the  above 
description;  the  sums  which  they  brought  at  auction;  the  amount  of  du- 
ties accruing  on  the  same;  expenses  of  sale,  and  the  amount  paid  into  the  . 
public  Treasury,  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  owners,  when  applied  for,  for 
each  year : 


Rep.  No.  669. 


37 


Years. 

Amount  of  ap- 
praised value 
of  goods,  with- 
out duties. 

Duties  on 
goods. 

Total  value 
of  appraised 
goods,  includ- 
ing duties. 

Total  value  of 
gross  sales. 

Collector's  and 
other  charges. 

Paid  into 
Treasury  for 
use  of  owners. 

1838 

$3,753  73 

$1,388  25 

$5,141  98 

$4,095  41 

$1,182  83 

$1,523  88 

1839 

4,299  15 

683  91 

4,983  06 

3,211  45 

1,390  57 

1,087  87 

1840 

14,671  69 

4,758  81 

19,430  50 

13,107  96 

3,329  51 

4,969  19 

Total 

22,724  57 

6,830  97 

29,555  54 

20,414  82 

5,902  91 

7,580  94 

The  following  analysis  is  given,  to  show  the  nature  of  the  charges  made 


on  these  goods  : 

Collector's  commission  -----  $33  57 

Auctioneer's  commission  -----  838  07 

Advertising            ------  2,760  78 

G.  A.  Wasson,  for  labor  -          -          -          -          -  147  50 

Weighing    -          -  -          -          -          -          -  26  25 

■  Jesse  Hoyt,  for  storage  -                               -          -  2,036  80 

Not  accounted  for    -  -          -          -          -          -  59  94 


Total       -------        5,902  91 


From  the  above  statement  it  appears  that,  in  the  year  1S40,  the  goods 
remaining  in  store  over  nine  months  unclaimed  accumulated,  from  about 
an  average  of  $4,000  in  the  two  preceding  years,  to  the  sum  of  $14,671  69 — 
an  increase  which  can  only  be  accounted  for  by  a  knowledge,  on  the  part 
of  the  importers,  that  any  attempt  to  enter  their  goods  at  the  custom-house 
would,  under  the  general  practice  of  Mr,  Hoyt,  subject  them  to  seizure, 
either  before  or  after  the  duties  had  been  paid.  In  many  instances  the  in- 
voices were  not  of  sufficient  amount  in  value  to  justify  the  enormous  ex- 
pense attending  a  trial  of  the  goods  in  court,  and  in  all  such  cases  judg- 
ment of  condemnation  has  usually  gone  by  default,  and  a  total  loss  to  the 
claimant,  however  innocent  of  any  design  to  defraud  the  revenue,  has  been 
the  consequence.  Such  claimants,  therefore,  have  preferred  to  take  the 
risk  of  a  nine  months'  sale,  rather  than  incur  the  expense  of  claiming  their 
goods  after  seizure,  or  a  forfeiture  for  the  want  of  defence.  The  sales 
of  the  three  years  included  in  the  above  estimate  resulted  in  a  loss  to  the 
owners  of  the  goods,  taking  them  at  the  appraised  value,  with  the  addition 
of  the  duties,  of  $15,143  63.  If  these  goods  had  passed  the  custom-house 
in  the  usual  way,  they  would  have  brought,  in  the  New  York  market,  at 
least  10  per  cent,  above  their  appraised  value,  including  the  duties,  which, 
being  added  to  the  loss  on  the  sales  at  auction,  would  bring  the  amount  of 
actual  loss  to  the  owners  up  to  the  sum  of  $18,099  13.*  The  bills  paid  by 
the  collector  for  expenses  charged  on  these  goods  are  extravagant  in  a  de- 
gree which  imparts  to  them  the  idea  of  fiction  rather  than  of  fact.  Take, 
for  example,  the  item  for  advertising,  which  is  fixed  in  the  account  at 
$2,760  78,  being  above  12  per  cent,  on  the  appraised  value  of  the  goods, 
for  advertising  alone.  Mr.  Hoyt,  it  seems,  did  not  neglect  himself  in  the 
charges  on  these  goods,  having  reserved  for  his  own  use  $2,o3S  80,  being 
9  per  cent,  on  the  appraised  value  of  the  goods,  for  storage.    The  other 


38 


liep.  Ho.  669. 


items  charged  on  the  goods,  being  of  less  amount,  are  not  deemed  worthy 
of  particular  notice;  but  they  are  pro  rata  equally  extravagant.  It  may 
be  useful  to  explain  the  manner  in  which  these  sales  are  conducted. 

By  the  act  of  1799,  section  56,  it  was  provided  that  all  goods  admitted  to 
entry  shall  be  "  kept  v/ith  due  and  reasonable  care,  at  the  charge  and  risk  of 
the  owner  or  owners  thereof,  for  the  term  of  nine  months;  and  if  within  that 
time  no  claim  be  made  for  the  same,  the  collector  shall  procure  an  inventory 
of  said  goods,  and  an  appraisement  thereof,  to  be  made,  and  to  be  verified 
on  oath  or  affirmation  by  two  or  more  reputable  merchants,  before  the  said 
collector,  and  to  remain  with  him."  At  the  expiration  of  nine  months,  such 
goods,  so  remaining  in  store  unclaimed,  are  directed  to  be  sold  according  to 
the  provisions  of  the  act  above  referred  to,  and,  after  deducting  all  charges 
thereon, the  overplus,if  any  there  be,  is  directed  to  be  paid  into  the  Treasury 
of  the  United  States,  there  to  remain  for  the  use  of  the  owner  or  owners, 
who  shall,  upon  due  proof  of  his,  her,  or  their  property,  be  entitled  to  re- 
ceive the  same.  This  act  has  been  modified,  so  far  as  it  respects  the  ap- 
praisement of  the  goods,  which  was,  by  the  act  of  1823,  transferred  to  the 
appraisers  appointed  by  the  President ;  in  all  other  respects,  the  law  is  with- 
out change.  It  remains  to  be  seen  in  what  manner  the  provisions  of  law, 
in  relation  to  these  unclaimed  goods,  have  been  executed. 

In  the  first  place,  the  mode  of  advertising  the  goods  for  auction,  which 
takes  place  usually  in  the  months  of  December  and  January  of  each  year,  has 
been  merely  to  give  the  marks  and  number  of  the  packages,  the  names  of 
the  vessels,  and  the  place  whence  imported.  No  description  of  the  goods  in 
boxes  or  packages  is  given,  either  in  respect  to  the  quantity  in  each  box  or 
package,  the  quality,  or  the  material  of  which  they  are  respectively  com- 
posed. The  custom-house  officers  who  assist  in  the  appraisement  are 
alone  informed  on  these  points.  The  auctioneer  is  furnished  with  a  gen- 
eral statement  of  the  appraised  value  of  each  box  or  package,  but  no  de- 
scription of  their  contents  is  given,  and  no  special  examination  of  the 
goods,  by  persons  attending  the  sale  for  the  purpose  of  purchasing,  is 
permitted.  The  boxes  or  packages,  if  valuable,  are  generally  let  down, 
from  a  scuttle,  on  a  platform  above  the  heads  of  the  bidders,  and  out  of 
their  reach  or  inspection,  or  suspended  by  a  rope  from  the  upper  rooms  in 
which  they  are  stored,  but  equally  out  of  the  view  of  the  bidders,  so  that 
no  one  can  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the  quality  of  the  goods,  except  those 
who  have  had  private  opportunities  of  inspecting  them,  or  such  as  are  let 
into  the  secret  for  purposes  of  speculation  and  profit. 

This  unfair  system  of  auction  sales,  differing  entirely  from  the  custom 
observed  in  the  sale  of  goods  on  mercantile  account,  has  resulted  in  heavy 
losses  to  some  and  exorbitant  profits  to  others.  The  uncertainty  attending 
all  purchases  made  by  those  who  did  not  possess  private  means  of  exam- 
ining the  goods  has  deterred  almost  every  prudent  merchant  from  attending 
the  sales.  The  result  has  been,  that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  valuable 
packages  or  boxes  of^oods  sold  under  these  circumstances  have  been  pur- 
chased below  their  cost  or  appraised  value  by  custom-house  officers,  whose 
opportunities  afforded  them  a  full  knowledge  of  the  articles  which  they 
purchased,  which  no  other  person  attending  the  sales  possessed,  except 
such  as  were  in  the  secret,  and  united  with  these  officers  in  speculations, 
and  in  whose  names  the  goods  are  usually  struck  off,  to  prevent  suspicion, 
which  would  otherwise  have  attached  to  the  officer  of  the  customs  interested 
in.  the  purchase.  In  some  cases,  George  A.  Wasson,  the  public  storekeeper 


Rep.  No.  669. 


39 


and  other  officers  belonging  to  the  appraiser's  department,  purchased  in 
their  own  names,  but  the  more  general  practice  was  to  substitute  the  name 
of  another  person. 

In  one  instance,  which  is  given  in  the  testimony  of  John  D.  Phillips,  a 
clerk  in  the  store  of  Messrs.  Mills  &  Co.,  (the  custom-house. auctioneers,)  at 
a  salary  of  five  hundred  dollars  per  annum,  availing  himself  of  the  oppor- 
tunity of  a  private  examination  of  a  large  quantity  of  silk  goods  and  Genoa 
velvets,  became  the  purchaser,  in  the  name  of  another  person,  of  the  whole, 
or  nearly  the  whole,  of  the  valuable  goods.  These  goods  were  arranged 
and  the  sale  conducted  in  the  same  manner  as  at  the  other  nine  months 
sales.  The  witness  testifies  that  this  clerk  realized  a  small  fortune  at  this 
single  sale,  arising  out  of  the  knowledge  he  had  acquired  of  the  quality  and 
value  of  the  goods.  These  fraudulent  sales  have  been  for  a  long  time  made 
at  the  custom-house  in  New  York,  to  the  great  injury  of  the  individual  own- 
ers, as  will  be  seen  by  the  preceding  table ;  and  it  would  seem  that,  on  every 
principle  of  justice  and  fair  dealing,  they  ought  to  be  reformed.  The  same 
system  of  advertising,  without  a  catalogue  of  the  goods  for  the  inspection 
of  purchasers,  has  been  adopted  by  the  present  collector,  and  it  is  presumed 
will  be  in  all  respects  continued,  without  some  special  legislation  to  pre- 
vent it. 

The  extravagant  expenditures  and  other  practices  at  the  New  York  cus- 
tom-house, which  have  been  noticed  in  the  preceding  part  of  this  report, 
might  have  been  prevented  in  their  inception,  and" may  be  checked  in  fu- 
ture, by  a  careful  examination  of  the  vouchers  at  the  end  of  each  quarter, 
as  they  are  returned  to  the  Treasury  Department ;  and  by  instructions  to 
the  collector,  properly  enforced,  on  any  part  of  his  duties  where  errors  ap- 
pear to  exist  in  the  performance  of  these  duties.  But  this  has  hitherto 
been  almost  entirely  neglected  ;  and  it  is  matter  of  no  little  surprise  that  the 
gross  frauds  and  malpractices  of  Mr.  Hoyt  have  not  only  passed  without 
rebuke,  but  they  have  been  either  tacitly  or  expressly  approved  by  the 
head  of  the  Treasury  Department  for  the  time  being. 

All  the  officers  of  the  customs,  including  the  appraisers,  were  subjected 
to  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  collector ;  and  if  any  one  of  them  should  have  the 
independence  to  perform  his  official  duty  otherwise  than  as  directed,  he  at 
once  became  the  victim  of  his  supreme  master.  The  orders  of  Mr.  Wood- 
bury were,  in  some  instances,  disobeyed  with  impunity ;  and  if  the  Secre- 
tary complained,  a  still  higher  power  was  appealed  to,  where  the  collector 
was  certain  to  find  support.  The  advances  to  reform  have  been  com- 
mended to  the  notice  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  the  official  letters 
of  the  present  collector,  and  freely  spoken  of  by  him  before  the  commis- 
sioners, but  they  are  not  to  be  found  in  any  department  of  the  custom- 
house under  his  immediate  control. 

Under  the  existing  organization  of  the  custom-house,  the  collector  may, 
at  his  own  discretion,  order  the  auditor  to  check  on  the  cashier  for  any  bill, 
however  extravagant  or  unjust,  and  such  order  may  not  be  disobeyed,  as 
the  auditor  holds  his  office  at  the  will  of  the  collector.  He  may,  on  the 
other  hand,  give  an  order  to  this  officer  to  reject  any  bill,  however  reason- 
able and  just,  and  the  same  result  will  follow.  The  cashier  of  the  custom- 
house is  in  no  better  condition  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  he  also  being 
equally  bound  by  the  orders  which  he  may  receive  from  the  collector,  the 
binding  force  of  which  is  guarantied  by  the  power  of  removal  from  office, 
now  held  and  exercised  over  these  officers  at  the  pleasure  of  the  collector, 


Rep.  No.  669. 


without  any  efficient  control  which  may  be  relied  on  at  the  Treasury  De- 
partment. 

The  appraisers  have  heretofore  been  subjected  to  the  arbitrary  will  of 
the  collector,  which  has  been  productive  of  much  embarrassment  to  them 
in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  and  to  the  foreign  commerce  at  this  port. 
This  department  of  the  custom-house  has,  since  the  commissioners  com- 
menced their  investigations,  been  practically  reformed,  so  as  to  render  the 
appraisers  independent  of  the  collector  in  the  appointment  of  their  clerks 
and  other  subordinates,  and  in  the  appraisement  of  goods.  This  innova- 
tion of  the  former  practice  is  essential  to  the  independent  action  of  this  im- 
portant branch  of  the  custom-house.  The  appraisers  are,  by  law,  forbidden 
to  receive  any  portion  of  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitutes,  accruing  on  the 
seizure  of  goods,  so  as  to  remove  from  them  all  temptation  to  raise  the  in- 
voice price  of  foreign  merchandise,  and  thereby  subject  it  to  seizure  ;  and 
yet,  under  Mr.  Hoyt,  they  were  overruled  in  their  appraisements  by  per- 
sons selected  for  the  purpose,  while  he  looked  to  the  same  inducements 
which  were  denied  to  the  appraisers,  in  order  to  exempt  their  judgments 
from  all  bias  resulting  from  contingent  pecuniary  considerations. 

Without  enlarging  on  these  details,  the  undersigned  would  respectfully 
recommend  modifications  of  the  existing  laws,  limiting  the  powers  of  the 
collector  over  the  officers  of  the  customs,  and  erecting  departments  respon- 
sible only  to  the  President  of  the  United  States.  The  auditor  of  the  cus- 
tom-house should  be  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  made 
wholly  independent  of  the  collector  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  to  be 
prescribed  by  law. 

The  cashier  should  also  be  appointed  in  the  same  manner,  and  required 
to  give  security  in  a  penal  sum  sufficient  to  cover  any  defalcation" which 
might  arise  in  the  receipt  and  deposite  of  the  public  money  according  to 
law  and  the  instructions  of  the  Treasury  Department.  His  duties  and  re- 
sponsibilities should  be  so  regulated  as  to  render  him  independent  of  the 
control,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  of  the  collector. 

The  naval  officer,  intended  as  a  check  on  the  collector,  has  heretofore 
been  unable  to  fulfil  the  intention  of  the  law  as  it  has  been  administered 
by  former  collectors.  This  office  also  deserves  the  particular  attention  of 
the  Treasury  Department  and  of  Congress,  in  order  to  make  it  competent 
to  perform  the  salutary  functions  desigued  in  its  creation. 

The  appraiser's  department  requires  revision  and  reorganization,  both  in 
respect  to  the  number  of  appraisers  and  their  salaries,  which  are  now  below 
the  standard  requisite  to  command  the  services  of  the  best-informed  mer- 
chants, whose  knowledge  of  foreign  markets  is  essential  to  protect  the 
•  revenue  from  frauds,  and  give  uniformity  to  the  valuation  of  goods  of  every 
description  imported  from  foreign  markets  ;  and  the  appraisers,  so  consti- 
tuted, should,  in  all  respects,  be  free  from  the  control  of  the  collector. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  should  be  clothed  with  power  to  appoint 
and  remove  inspectors  of  the  customs,  weighers,  gaugers,  and  measurers, 
as  well  as  night  inspectors.  These  inferior  officers  are  now  appointed  by 
the  collector ;  but,  when  appointed,  they  are  subject  to  the  orders  of  the 
suveyor  only,  who  has  no  power  to  enforce  his  orders,  by  removal,  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  the  collector,  who  may  impose  on  the  surveyor  in- 
competent or  refractory  officers,  for  whose  conduct  he  is  in  a  great  degree 
responsible,  without  the  power  to  command  obedience  to  his  orders  in  any 
other  manner  than  by  an  appeal  to  the  collector.    This  evil  has  been  seen 


Rep.  No.  669. 


41 


and  felt  in  the  practical  operation  of  the  present  arrangement  relating  to 
this  subject.  Other  modifications  of  the  existing  system  might  be  suggest- 
ed, particularly  in  relation  to  light-houses  and  revenue  cutters ;  but  the 
undersigned  has  appended  to  this  report  a  bill,  which  comprises  #11  the 
views  which  he  deems  it  important  to  present  in  relation  to  these  matters, 
which  he  earnestly  recommends  to  the  consideration  of  the  Department  of 
the  Treasury. 

The  attention  of  the  commissioners  was  particularly  directed  by  their 
instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  an  inquiry,  "  whether 
frauds  have  been  secretly  and  habitually  practised  by  importers  of  mer- 
chandise, to  the  injury  of  the  revenue  ;and  if  so,  whether  it  was  owing  to  any 
defect  in  the  existing  laws,  or  to  the  connivance  or  negligence  of  any  of 
the  officers  of  the  customs;  and  if  so,  of  whom." 

In  search  of  these  frauds,  and  the  manner  in  which  they  have  been  or 
might  be  perpetrated,  the  commissioners  have  examined  the  most  intelli- 
gent and  experienced  merchants  engaged  in  the  importation  of  foreign 
goods  and  in  domestic  manufactures,  both  in  New  York  and  Boston.  The 
interrogatories  put  to  these  merchants  covered  the  whole  ground  of  their 
knowledge  of  frauds  or  evasions  of  the  revenue  laws;  their  belief  in  the  ex- 
istence of  such  frauds;  the  information  which  they  had  received  from 
others,  and  circumstances  which  might  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  such 
frauds  and  evasions  had  been  practised,  to  the  injury  of  the  revenue  or  of 
the  honest  importer.  Of  their  own  knowledge,  not  a  single  witness  called 
has  testified  to  any  fact  which  established,  in  any  particular  case,  or  any 
number  of  cases,  the  existence  of  frauds  or  evasions  of  the  revenue  laws. 
From  rumors  and  various  circumstances  relating  to  the  discrepancy  in  price 
between  importers  of  the  same  description  of  goods,  (some  of  these 
selling  at  a  price  far  below  what  could  be  afforded  by  others  at  a  reason- 
able profit,)  and  speculative  opinions,  all  agree  that  frauds  have  been  prac- 
tised on  the  revenue,  at  different  times,  to  a  considerable  extent.  They 
also  speak  of  the  devices  by  which  these  frauds  have  been  successfully 
perpetrated,  and  by  which  they  may  be  again ;  but  of  their  own  know- 
ledge they  do  not  profess  to  know  any  thing,  resting  their  opinions  entirely 
on  general  reputation  and  the  course  of  trade,  as  it  has  existed  under  their 
own  observation.  Many  of  the  witnesses  examined  on  these  points  are 
domestic  mannfacturers  or  their  agents,  or  merchants  referred  to  by  such 
manufacturers  to  establish  the  existence  of  frauds  on  the  revenue,  in  order 
to  place  foreign  commerce  under  the  most  rigid  restrictions,  to  exclude  the 
foreign  fabric,  for  the  benefit  of  domestic  goods  of  the  same  description.  It 
may  therefore  be  fairly  presumed,  that  if  any  positive  evidence  could  be 
adduced  to  fix  the  charge  of  fraud  on  any  number  of  foreign  importers, 
it  would  have  been,  as  the  door  was  widely  thrown  open,  by  the  commis- 
sioners, to  the  introduction  of  such  evidence.  None  such,  however,  was 
adduced,  and  it  is  presumed,  therefore,  that  none  such  existed. 

The  following  extracts  from  the  testimony  of  Josiah  Lane,  a  large  im- 
porting merchant  in  New  York,  will  serve  to  show  the  nature  and  extent 
of  all  the  evidence  given  by  this  class  of  witnesses  in  relation  to  frauds 
or  supposed  frauds  on  the  revenue,  alleged  to  have  been  committed  by  im- 
porters of  foreign  merchandise  : 

"Question  2.  Do  you  know,  or  have  you  satisfactory  evidence  to  induce 
you  to  believe,  that  the  revenue  laws  have-  been  evaded,  or  that  frauds 


42 


Rep.  tNo*  669. 


upon  the  revenue  have  been  practised  by  importers  of  goods  into  the  city 
of  New  York  ? 

"Answer  2.  My  knowledge  of  frauds  upon  the  revenue,  by  importers, 
is  only  f$om  common  report.  I  have  heard  it  reported  so  constantly,  that 
I  verily  believe  extensive  frauds  have,  at  different  times,  been  committed. " 

In  answer  to  the  3d  question,  Mr.  Lane  says : 

"  The  devices  by  which  frauds  are  practised  upon  the  revenue,  /  pre- 
sume to  be,  by  importers  presenting  for  entry  and  swearing  to  false  in- 
voices of  goods  which  pay  an  ad  valorem  duty." 

He  further  states: 

"My  house, to  a  certain  extent,  has  been  compelled  to  abandon  the  im- 
portation from  France  of  articles  paying  high  duties,  as  we  have  uniformly 
been  undersold  by  other  importers  of  such  articles,  who  have  seemed  to 
possess  some  secret  means  by  which  they  could  afford  to  sell  such  goods 
at  less  than  cost,  to  those  importers  who  buy  in  foreign  markets  with 
money." 

And  in  answer  to  question  9,  on  the  same  subject,  he  states  as  follows  : 

"It  is  within  my  knowledge,  as  it  is  generally  notorious,  that  certain  houses 
carry  on  the  business  of  importing  certain  articles  paying  high  duties,  and 
that  they  are  able  to  drive  out  competition,  by  underselling  what  is  called 
the  fair  merchant.  My  opinion  is,  that  it  is  not  from  buying  their  goods 
lower  in  foreign  markets,  but  that  they  pay  less  duty  here  at  the  custom- 
house, and  of  course  can  afford  to  sell  for  less  than  a  neighbor  w  ho  has  paid 
honest  duty.  I  am  not  able  to  name  the  names  of  such  importers,  not  hav- 
ing proofs  to  substantiate  frauds  against  any  particular  firm.  These 
firms  could  be  known  to  the  officers  of  the  custom-house,  if  their  goods 
were  critically  examined  when  passing  entries." 

These  extracts  constitute  the  strongest  evidence  taken  by  the  commis- 
sioners to  establish  the  existence  of  fraudulent  practices  to  evade  the  pay- 
ment of  proper  duties  on  importations  made  into  the  port  of  New  York. 
They  disclose  no  definite  fact  on  which  the  judgment  can  rest,  or  by  which 
a  remedy  could  be  suggested,  to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  the  practices 
complained  of,  and  which  are  presumed  to  have  existed. 

That  frauds  have  been  committed  on  the  revenue  since  the  foundation 
of  this  Government,  and  that  these  frauds  will  continue  to  exist  to  the  end 
of  time,  so  long  as  revenue  is  collected  on  foreign  importations,  does  not 
admit  of  a  doubt.  The  most  prolific  source  from  which  they  spring,  and 
that  which  is  found  most  difficult  to  be  overcome. is  the  smuggling  of  foreign 
merchandise  into  the  United  States  along  our  extensive  frontier  bordering 
on  the  British  provinces.  Smuggling  may  also  be  perpetrated  in  the  night 
time,  or  by  collusion  between  the  discharging  inspector  and  the  officers  of 
vessel,  or  the  owner  or  consignee  of  the  goods.  It  is  in  evidence  that  this 
latter  practice  has  been  not  unfrequent  in  this  port.  The  expense  incurred 
by  the  Government  for  night  inspectors  is  very  great,  far  beyond  any  thing 
which  could  justify  the  appointment  of  so  large  a  number  of  inspectors  of 
this  class.  They  ought  to  be  reduced,  if  not  entirely  dispensed  with,  except 
so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  guard  the  public  stores  against  fire  and 
the  abstraction  of  goods  deposited  in  those  stores  in  the  night  time,  which 
it  is  in  evidence  has  sometimes  occurred  by  the  connivance  or  approba- 
tion of  the  public  storekeeper  or  his  assistants. 

The  difficulty  and  risk  of  smuggling  from  vessels  regularly  entered,  after 
the  manifest  has  been  delivered  to  the  collector,  would  seem  to  be  a  suffi- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


43 


cient  guard  against  the  landing  of  packages  in  the  night,  and  thereby  cre- 
ate a  discrepancy  between  the  manifest  and  the  goods  entered  for  the  pay- 
ment of  duties.  The  penalties  on  the  ship,  besides  the  crime  of  perjury 
which  would  attach  to  the  captain,  in  case  the  goods  contained  in  the  man- 
ifest should  fall  short,  might  be  considered  adequate  to  the  suppression  of 
smuggling  from  vessels  in  port  during  the  night ;  but  it  is,  nevertheless, 
alleged  that  this  practice  has  existed  to  a  certain  extent.  Smuggling  by 
collusion  with  the  discharging  officers,  by  means  of  bribery,  is  both  more 
practicable  and  more  frequent.  The  laws,  as  they  at  present  exist  for  the 
suppression  of  smuggling,  seem  to  require  revision  and  modification,  to 
render  them  effective. 

It  is  worthy  of  consideration,  whether  it  would  not  be  productive  of  a 
salutary  influence  on  the  public  mind  to  stimulate  vigilant  efforts  in  the 
detection  and  seizure  of  smuggled  goods  introduced  into  the  country 
through  the  British  colonies  in  Canada,  to  give  to  the  person  or  persons 
making  the  seizures  the  whole  amount  of  the  value  of  the  goods  seized  and 
condemned,  on  the  payment  of  duties.  Such  a  measure  would  excite  the 
whole  population  on  the  frontier  to  active  exertions  in  detecting  smugglers, 
for  their  own  benefit,  which  they  could  not  be  induced  to  do  when  a  small 
portion  only  of  the  goods  inured  to  the  benefit  of  the  person  making  the 
seizure.  The  practice  might  in  this  manner  be  rendered  extremely  hazard- 
ous, if  it  would  not  be  entirely  suppressed,  by  the  dread  of  detection. 

To  prevent  smuggling  in  the  night  time,  or  by  collusion  with  the  dis- 
charging inspector,  after  a  vessel  shall  have  arrived  in  port,  a  similar  regu- 
lation, giving  to  the  night  inspector,  or  other  person  making  the  seizure, 
the  whole  amount  of  the  value  of  the  goods  seized,  and  not,  as  at  present, 
to  the  Government  and  certain  other  officers  of  the  customs,  would,  it  is 
believed,  do  more  to  check  the  practice  than  any  supervision  of  these  in- 
spectors which  could  possibly  be  exerted  by  the  collector  or  surveyor  of 
the  port.  - 

How  far  the  payment  of  duties  may  have  been  evaded  by  the  devices 
mentioned  in  the  testimony,  of  introducing  and  swearing  to  false  invoices, 
has  not  been  and  it  is  believed  cannot  be  demonstrated  by  proof.  That 
cases  of  this  description  may  have  occurred,  is  not  only  possible,  but  prob- 
able ;  but  if  the  fact  be  as  it  is  represented,  the  fault  must  be  traced  to  de- 
fects in  the  administration  of  the  laws,  rather  than  to  the  laws  now  in 
force  on  that  subject.  For  the  purpose  of  preventing  these  evasions  of 
the  payment  of  the  full  amount  of  duties,  Congress  created  the  office  of 
appraiser,  and  designated  a  sufficient  number  of  appraisers  and  assistant 
appraisers  at  each  port  to  examine  and  appraise  all  foreign  merchandise 
imported  into  the  United  States.  The  invoice  produced  and  sworn  to, 
whether  it  be  fair  or  false,  forms  no  guide  to  the  appraisers  in  fixing  the 
market  value  of  the  goods  at  the  place  whence  imported ;  and  if  such 
goods  are  passed,  and  the  duties  paid,  at  a  valuation  below  the  proper 
standard,  the  error  lies  at  the  door  of  these  officers,  and  cannot  properly 
be  charged  on  the  importer,  whatever  might  be  his  intention  at  the  time  of 
the  entry  of  his  goods.  No  other  remedy,  it  would  seem,  could  be  pro- 
vided against  such  evasions  or  attempted  evasions  of  the  revenue,  but  the 
one  now  in  existence,  by  which  the  merchandise  is  subjected  to  the  exami- 
nation and  appraisement  of  officers  selected  by  this  Government  to  per- 
form that  duty,  and  who  ought  at  least  to  be  presumed  to  act  with  fidelity 
in  the  discharge  of  the  trust  confided  to  them. 


44 


Rep.  No.  669. 


The  undersigned  is  of  opinion,  from  a  review  of  all  the  evidence  taken, 
that  the  principal  appraisers  and  their  assistants,  during  Mr.  Hoyt's  collect- 
orship,  were  honest,  faithful,  and  intelligent  men,  on  whose  judgment  and 
impartiality  great  reliance  might  have  been  placed,  in  protecting  the  pub- 
lic interests  by  a  uniform  and  just  standard  of  valuation  of  all  the  foreign 
merchandise  sent  to  the  public  store  for  their  appraisement.  But  these 
men  were  interrupted  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties  by  means  resorted  to 
by  the  collector,  for  the  accomplishment  of  objects  distinct  from  the  protec- 
tion of  the  revenue,  as  will  hereafter  be  shown  ;  and  in  consequence  of  these 
illegal,  fraudulent,  and  arbitrary  proceedings  of  the  collector,  the  revenue 
collected  at  this  port,  during  his  term  of  office,  was  reduced  in  a  much 
greater  ratio  than  by  all  the  other  devices  which  have  been  ascribed  to 
foreign  importers. 

To  show  the  rise  and  progress  of  these  interruptions  of  the  regular  for- 
eign commerce  of  the  country  at  this  port,  and  their  effect  on  the  public 
revenue  derived  from  imposts,  it  is  necessary  to  go  back  lo  the  commence- 
ment of  the  term  of  office  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  and  sum  up  the  evidence  taken  on 
the  subject  of  the  existence  of  an  understanding  or  combination  in  relation 
to  the  importations  of  foreign  woollens,  between 

THE  DOMESTIC  MANUFACTURER  AND  THE  COLLECTOR  OF  THE  CUSTOMS 

OF  NEW  YORK. 

The  undersigned,  in  approaching  this  subject  deems  it  due  to  himself  to 
premise  -that  it  forms  no  part  of  the  object  contemplated  in  the  review  of 
the  testimony  which  will  be  submitted  to  implicate  in  any  manner  the  high 
character  of  the  manufacturers  whose  names  are  connected  with  the  trans- 
actions of  the  collector  of  this  port. 

The  evidence  given  by  these  manufacturers  will  be  chiefly  relied  on  to 
demonstrate  the  extent  to  which  their  interposition,  to  control  the  action  of 
the  collector  in  reference  to  importations  of  foreign  merchandise  into  the 
port  of  New  York,  was  carried.  Other  evidence  will  be  noticed  in  connex- 
ion with  that  given  by  the  manufacturers,  for  the  sole  purpose  of  placing 
these  matters  fully  and  fairly  before  the  Treasury  Department,  without 
prejudice  to  the  parties  concerned;  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  to 
the  view  of  the  Government  facts  and  circumstances  intimately  connected 
with  the  public  revenue  and  other  great  interests  of  the  country.  The 
vast  amount  of  foreign  merchandise  imported  into  the  port  of  New  York, 
and  the  duties  collected  on  such  importations,  constituting  more  than  one- 
half  the  amount  collected  throughout  the  Union,  renders  it  particularly  in- 
cumbent on  the  Executive  to  see  that  the  laws  imposing  duties,  and  pre- 
scribing the  manner  in  which  they  shall  be  estimated  and  collected,  should 
be  faithfully  executed,  free  from  all  influences  which  might  be  brought  to 
bear  on  the  conduct  of  the  officers  of  the  customs,  from  any  quarter  whatever. 
It  is  obvious  that  if  the  manufacturing  interest  of  the  country  should  be  per- 
mitted, by  any  device  whatsoever,  or  by  any  arrangement  or  understanding 
with  the  collector  of  this  port,  to  affix  a  standard  of  value,  from  time  to 
time,  on  foreign  importations  imported  into  New  York,  other  than  that 
which  may  be  fixed  according  to  the  provisions  of  law,  that  such  interfer- 
ence would  operate  to  establish  any  protection  which  might  be  deemed 
necessary  to  interdict  the  foreign  fabric,  and  give  the  command  of  the  home 
market  to  the  domestic  manufacturers,  without  the  sanction  of  laws  im- 


Eep.  No.  669. 


45 


posing  duties,  either  for  revenue  or  for  the  encouragement  of  any  particular 
branch  of  manufactures  in  the  country. 

If  duties  are  collected  on  a  high  standard  of  value  in  this  port,  into  which 
so  large  a  proportion  of  foreign  merchandise  is  brought,  and  if  that  stand- 
ard can  be  regulated  by  the  influence  or  interference  of  the  domestic  man- 
ufacturers of  the  same  articles,  the  tariff  of  duties  may  in  this  manner  be 
changed  as  often  as  it  may  be  required  by  such  manufacturers,  or  at  the 
pleasure  of  the  collector.  The  effect  of  such  combinations  would  not  only 
supersede  the  existing  laws  of  the  country,  but  would  effectually  interdict 
all  future  legislation,  however,  guarded,  imposing  a  tariff  of  duties  either 
for  revenue  or  protection.  Such  a  system,  under  which  the  laws  may  be 
readily  evaded  or  rendered  inoperative,  it  is  clear,  will  not  and  ought  not 
to  be  endured  by  the  American  people.  Let  the  laws  rule,  and  all  parts  of 
the  Union  will  be  equally  subjected  to  their  burdens,  and  will  equally  par- 
ticipate in  their  benefits.  There  is  no  principle  which  would  justify  or 
tolerate  the  interference  of  the  domestic  manufacturer  to  raise  the  standard 
of  value  of  foreign  goods  imported  into  New  York,  which  would  not  equally 
apply  to  every  other  part  of  the  Confederacy.  What  would  be  thought  of  a 
committee  from  Charleston  or  New  Orleans  demanding  interviews  with  the 
collector  at  this  port,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  a  lower  standard  of  value  on 
importations,  and  thereby  opening  more  widely  the  door  to  the  introduc- 
tion of  foreign  merchandise,  for  the  benefit  of  the  great  agricultural  interest 
of  the  nation  ?  Such  an  interference  would  not  be  tolerated  for  a  moment, 
and  would  doubtless  produce  an  excitement  which  could  not  be  readily  sub- 
dued; and  yet  no  American  citizen  can  with  any  reason  or  plausibility  defend 
the  like  privilege  to  another  portion  of  the  Union,  who  undertake,  under 
the  guise  of  protecting  the  revenue  from  frauds,  whether  real  or  imaginary, 
to  demand  an  increased  standard  of  value,  and  thereby  interdict  the  foreign 
article,  to  promote  the  particular  branch  of  industry  in  which  their  capital 
is  invested. 

These  preliminary  remarks  are  made  to  draw  particular  attention  to  the 
state  of  things  which  existed  during  the  term  of  office  of  the  late  collector, 
Hoyt,  which  will  be  seen  and  appreciated  by  reference  to  the  testimony, 
the  material  parts  of  which  will  be  examined  and  condensed. 

It  appears,  by  the  evidence  of  William  S.  Coe,  formerly  an  appraiser  of 
woollens  in  this  custom-house,  and  late  naval  officer,  that,  as  early  as  the 
year  1S29,  under  the  high-pressure  tariff  of  the  preceding  year,  great  dis- 
satisfaction was  manifested  by  the  woollen  manufacturers  at  that  day,  on 
the  subject  of  the  standard  of  value  fixed  by  the  appraisers  on  woollens  im- 
ported from  England  ;  and  that  a  principal  manufacturer  interfered  with  the 
appraisers  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  and  attempted  to  dictate  to  them 
a  higher  standard  of  value  by  personal  importunity,  and,  failing  in  that,  he 
resorted  to  the  promulgation  of  a  pamphlet,  in  which,  to  use  the  language 
of  Mr.  Coe,  "  myself  and  Mr.  Johnson,  my  colleague,  were  handled  in  a 
very  ungentlemanly  manner.77  This  individual,  whose  name  was  Peter 
H.  Schenck,  a  large  and  extensive  manufacturer  of  woollens,  who  profess- 
ed to  represent  that  interest  generally,  not  having  succeeded  by  his  charges 
of  partiality  on  the  appraisers,  nor  by  the  publication  of  his  pamphlet, 
which  was  designed  to  operate  on  popular  feeling,  to  the  prejudice  of  these 
officers  of  the  customs,  finally  resorted  to  the  expedient,  with  the  consent 
and  approbation  of  Mr.  Swartwout,  the  then  collector,  of  designating  the 


46 


Rep.  No.  669. 


ship  Silas  Richards,  shortly  expected  to  arrive  from  Liverpool,  freighted 
with  woollen  goods  of  British  manufacture,  and  subjecting  the  whole  cargo 
to  the  strict  examination  and  appraisement  of  five  merchants,  all  of  them 
importers,  and  well  acquainted  with  the  value  of  woollens,  both  in  the 
markets  of  Europe  and  of  this  country.  These  five  merchants  were  of  the 
class  denominated  American  importers — were  men  of  high  character  for 
integrity,  and,  as  such,  were  selected  to  make  the  appraisement  of  the  cargo, 
after  the  arrival  of  the  ship  Silas  Richards,  by  Mr.  Swartwout,  the  collector. 
Mr.  Coe  testifies  that  they  proceeded,  from  day  to  day,  without  the  pro- 
duction of  any  invoice,  in  the  examination  and  appraisement  of  these  goods, 
until  the  work  was  finished.  Mr.  Schenck  was  of  opinion,  as  he  said,  that 
this  examination  would  justify  his  charges  of  partiality  on  the  regular  ap- 
praisers, and  satisfy  the  collector  that  extensive  frauds  were  practised  on 
the  revenue  in  this  branch  of  commerce  ;  but  the  result  did  not,  by  any 
means,  correspond  with  his  expectations.  After  the  conclusion  of  the  ap- 
praisement of  these  goods  by  the  five  merchants  selected,  the  invoices  were 
produced,  and,  to  the  utter  astonishment  of  Mr.  Schenck  and  his  associates, 
the  difference  between  the  invoice  value  and  the  appraisement  on  the  whole 
cargo  amounted  only  to  the  paltry  sum  of  £29  sterling,  which  was  in  favor 
of  the  invoice  value.  Not  content  with  this  signal  rebuke  of  his  groundless 
charges  and  surmises,  implicating  the  appraisers,  under  the  pretext  of  a  pa- 
triotic desire  to  protect  the  revenue,  Mr.  Schenck  was  permitted  by  the  col- 
lector to  select  five  other  merchants,  of  his  own  choosing,  and  the  goods 
were  again  subjected  to  their  examination  and  appraisement.  The  result 
was  an  entire  concurrence  in  the  appraisement  previously  made.  From 
this  time,  it  appears  by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Coe,  this  clamorous  leader  of 
the  manufacturing  interest  was  silenced,  and  ceased  all  further  interference 
or  interruption  in  the  regular  business  of  the  custom-house  appraisers. 

This  warfare  against  foreign  importations  was  occasionally  continued,  un- 
der different  modifications,  to  the  great  injury  of  a  numerous  class  of  im- 
porters, during  the  term  of  Mr.  Swartwout  ;  but  it  seems  that,  between  the 
years  1836  and  1338,  the  efforts  of  the  manufacturers  had  in  a  great  meas- 
ure subsided,  and  given  to  commerce  a  short  season  of  repose.  Passing 
from  this  epoch  to  the  commencement  of  the  year  1838,  when  Jesse  Hoyt 
was  appointed  collector  of  this  port,  the  crusade  of  the  manufacturers  against 
importers  of  foreign  woollen  goods  was  again  renewed,  in  a  manner  and 
under  circumstances  more  injurious  to  the  public  revenue,  and  more  em- 
barrassing to  the  importer,  than  at  any  former  period.  Patriotism  and  a 
desire  to  protect  the  revenue  was  the  professed  object  of  the  manufacturers 
in  lending  their  kind  offices  at  the  custom-house  in  New  York,  in  order  that 
the  laws  might  be  faithfully  executed,  and  the  public  Treasury  filled  by 
their  disinterested  exertions,  for  which  they  claimed  the  thanks  of  the  coun- 
try. Mr.  Hoyt,  it  seems,  had  scarcely  taken  his  seat  as  collector  before  he 
was  waited  on  by  Mr.  Samuel  Lawrence,  of  Lowell,  and,  as  he  himself  tes- 
tifies, "  I  called  on  him  [Hoyt]  to  give  him  my  views  of  the  mode  the  wool- 
len appraisement  department,  had  been  conducted  under  his  predecessor, 
and  urged  him  to  look  into  it."  Again  :  Mr.  Lawrence  says  :  "  Sometime 
after,  I  was  in  New  York,  and  Mr.  Hoyt  told  me  he  wanted  a  good  judge 
of  woollen  goods  ;  and  if  I  would  recommend  such  a  person,  he  would  make 
him  an  assistant  appraiser.  I  made  considerable  effort  to  find  such  a  man, 
but  did  not  succeed,  and  never  proposed  one.  Mr.  Bradley  is  one  of  the 
best  judges  of  woollen  goods  I  know,  and  I  might  have  suggested  this  place 


Rep.  No.  669. 


47 


to  him,  but  I  do  not  remember  to  have  done  so.  At  any  rate,  T  should  have 
been  very  glad  to  have  had  him  in  that  department,  believing  him  to  be  faith- 
ful and  competent."  In  answer  to  a  question  relating  to  the  subject  of  select- 
ing an  appraiser  of  woollens  for  the  New  York  custom-house  from  the  manu- 
facturing interest  of  New  England,  Mr.  Lawrence  says  s  "  I  do  not  believe 
Mr.  Hoyt  ever  offered  to  appoint  au  appraiser  recommended  by  the  manufac- 
turers of  Boston,  Lowell,  or  any  other  place,  except  to  myself,  as  above  stat- 
ed." He  further  states,  in  answer  to  a  question,  whether  any  woollen 
manufacturer  had  attempted  to  raise  at  the  custom-house  in  New  York  the 
standard  of  prices  on  the  foreign  woollens  market  above  the  actual  cost : 
"  The  first  time  I  ever  called  on  Mr.  Hoyt,  after  he  was  appointed  collector, 
to  give  my  views  of  the  manner  the  appraisement  department  had  been 
conducted  in  the  New  York  custom-house,  I  stated  to  him  my  firm  belief 
that  the  standard  of  valuation  there  was  too  low."  He  then  proceeds  to 
give  his  reasons  for  this  opinion,  but  adds  that  he  had  not,  in  the  slightest 
degree,  interfered  with  any  officer,  or  made  an  effort  to  change  this  sys- 
tem. Mr.  Hoyt  promised,  at  this  interview,  to  call  to  the  assistance  of  the 
appraisers  some  importers  of  woollen  goods,  to  carry  out  the  views  of  Mr. 
Lawrence.  In  answer  to  the  second  question  propounded  by  the  commis- 
sioners, Mr.  Lawrence  says:  "From  my  own  knowledge,  I  know  of  no 
cases  of  frauds  practised  by  importing  merchants  in  the  city  of  New  York." 

It  is  in  proof,  by  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Win.  W.  Stone,  the  partner  of  Mr. 
Lawrence,  that  the  "  only  case  of  fraud  practised  by  importers  at  the  port 
of  New  York,  which  actually  came  to  my  knowledge,  was  the  entering  of 
114  cases  and  10  pieces  of  broadcloths  in  an  unlawful  manner,  by  James 
Bottomly,  jr.,  during  the  year  1S3S.  These  goods  were  seized  in  an 
auction  room,  upon  complaint  made  by  one  of  my  partners,  Mr.  Samuel 
Lawrence." 

It  may  be  asked  if,  in  the  year  1841,  Mr.  Lawrence  declared,  on  oath, 
that  he  had  no  knowledge  of  any  frauds  practised  by  importing  merchants 
in  New  York,  under  what  circumstances  or  state  of  facts  he  could  have 
made  a  complaint,  on  oath,  in  1838,  which  caused  the  seizure  of  the  goods 
of  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  on  the  ground  that  they  had  been  fraudulently 
entered  at  the  port  of  New  York,  and  transferred  to  Boston  for  a  market. 

It  further  appears,  by  an  official  communication  of  George  A.  Wasson  to 
the  collector  of  this  port,  that  simultaneously  with  the  seizure  of  the  goods 
in  Boston,  on  the  complaint  of  Mr.  Lawrence,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  the 
district  attorney  at  Baltimore,  or  to  a  mercantile  house  in  that  city,  advis- 
ing or  informing  them  of  the  frauds  committed  in  New  York  by  the  York- 
shire importers,  and  of  the  seizure  in  Boston  ;  and  recommended  "that  all 
goods  in  Baltimore,  that  were  suspected  as  belonging  to  any  one  of  these 
importers,  be  immediately  seized,"  as  having  been  fraudulently  entered  at 
the  port  of  New  York.  And  notwithstanding  these  proceedings,  taken  at 
the  instance  of  Mr.  Lawrence,  and  his  advice  given  to  the  district  attorney 
of  Maryland,  he  solemnly  affirms,  under  oath,  more  than  three  years  after- 
wards, that  he  had  no  knowledge  of  any  frauds  practised  by  importing 
merchants  in  the  city  of  New  York.  The  circumstances  under  which  the 
goods  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  seized  in  Boston,  were  condemned  by  the 
verdict  of  a  jury  in  that  city,  will  form  the  subject  of  future  comment. 

In  answer  to  another  question  put  by  the  commissioners,  having  relation 
to  the  appointment  of  appraisers  in  the  New  York  custom-house,  Mr. 


48 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Lawrence  says  :  "  For  more  than  twenty  years  /  have  believed  that  ex- 
tensive frauds  were  committed  at  the  New  York  custom-house,  by  a  class 
of  men  from  Yorkshire,  England  ;  and,  from  1834  to  1838,  the  amounts 
were  enormous/7  And  he  further  states:  "  It  is  within  my  knowledge,  that 
a  number  of  Yorkshiremen,  residents  of  New  York,  sold  English  broad- 
cloths for  many  years  at  prices  less  than  they  could  be  laid  down  here  by 
a  regular  importer  who  bought  his  goods  for  cash  in  England,  and  paid  the 
duties  fairly.  I  have  seen  thousands  of  pieces,  and  critically  examined 
ahnost  as  many  of  these  goods."  Whether  Mr.  Lawrence  made  this 
"critical  examination  at  the  custom-house  in  New  York,  he  does  not  state; 
but  if  they  (the  goods)  were  seen  and  examined  elsewhere,  it  does  not 
appear  how  their  identity  became  known  to  the  witness,  and  more  espe- 
cially it  does  not  appear  by  what  means  he  is  enabled  to  refer  directly  to 
the  houses  in  New  York  by  which  the  importations  were  made  and  the 
frauds  committed  of  which  he  complains. 

The  witness  further  testifies,  that  he  visited  the  woollens  left  at  the  cus- 
tom-house in  New  York,  in  company  with  Mr.  Hoyt  at  one  time,  and  in 
company  with  George  A.  Wasson  and  William  Cairns  at  another,  and  gave 
his  opinion  of  the  value  of  some  foreign  wool.  His  visits  to  Mr.  Hoyt, 
the  collector,  were  frequent,  and  their  intercourse  had  relation  entirely  to 
the  business  transactions  of  the  custom-house.  But,  in  all  these  things, 
Mr.  Lawrence  protests  that  he  was  actuated  by  no  other  consideration 
than  a  desire  to  see  that  the  laws  were  faithfully  executed,  and  avers  that 
he  never  "  offered  advice  or  made  a  suggestion  to  any  officer  of  the  cus- 
toms in  regard  to  the  performance  of  his  duties,  or  interfered  in  any 
manner  with  the  affairs  of  the  custom-house." 

It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  declaration  is  made  by  Mr.  Lawrence 
in  the  face  of  his  admission  that  he  had  urged  upon  the  collector  in  the 
most  earnest  manner  the  necessity  of  establishing  at  this  port  a  higher 
standard  of  value  than  that  fixed  by  the  appraisers,  by  which  to  estimate 
the  duties  on  foreign  woollens.  If  this  is  not  giving  advice,  or  interfering 
with  any  officers  of  the  customs  in  the  discharge  of  their  official  duties,  its 
real  character  and  definition  remains  to  be  given  by  some  casuist  better 
skilled  in  that  branch  of  reasoning  than  the  writer  of  this  report.  Mr. 
Lawrence  swears  that  he  obtained  the  promise  of  Mr.  Hoyt  to  call  in  to 
the  appraiser's  assistance  some  importers  of  woollen  goods,  and  a  further 
promise  to  appoint  any  one  an  assistant  appraiser  in  the  woollens  loft  whom 
he  might  recommend,  he  being  largely  concerned  in  the  manufacture  of 
domestic  woollen  goods.  Were  these  promises  or  pledges  obtained  with- 
out the  advice  or  interference  in  any  manner  whatever  of  the  witness  with 
the  affairs  of  the  New  York  custom-house  ?  The  foregoing  extracts  from 
the  testimony  of  Mr.  Lawrence  will  serve  to  show  the  inception  of  that 
extensive  system  of  seizures  of  foreign  woollens  which  was  put  in  opera- 
tion by  Mr.  Hoyt,  for  the  double  purpose  of  filling  his  own  pockets  with 
money  extorted  from  the  foreign  importer,  and  to  drive  foreign  woollens 
out  of  the  market,  for  the  benefit  of  the  domestic  manufacturer  of  that 
fabric.  The  testimony  of  this  witness  will  be  again  recurred  to  to  illus- 
trate these  and  other  points  of  this  report. 

The  testimony  of  William  W.  Stone,  the  partner  of  Samuel  Lawrence, 
in  the  manufacture  of  domestic  woollens,  will  next  be  noticed.  Mr.  Stone, 
like  his  partner,  testifies  that  he  has  no  knowledge  of  any  frauds  committed 
by  importing  merchants  at  the  custom-house  in  New  York,  save  only  the 


Rep.  No.  669. 


49 


case  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.  He  states  that  he  made  frequent  visits  to  Mr. 
Hoyt  and  other  officers  at  the  custom-house,  but  particularly  on  the  subject 
of  Mr.  Bottomly's  case,  to  obtain  testimony  from  the  subordinate  officers 
of  the  customs  in  New  York,  to  aid  in  the  condemnation  of  the  goods.  He 
further  states  that,  on  these  occasions,  he  visited  the  woollens  loft,  where 
he  found  Mr.  Cairns  and  Mr.  Lounsberry  ;  that  he  examined  cloths  of 
British  manufacture,  which  were  opened  for  appraisement ;  made  experi- 
ments on  them,  by  applying  muriatic  acid  to  the  colors,  and  caused  many 
of  the  pieces  to  be  remeasured  by  Mr.  Cairns,  and  found  a  piece  marked 
14^  yards,  which  measured  151  yards;  gave  his  opinion  to  the  appraisers 
that  it  was  " too  liberal,"  and  said  to  them  "this  is  evidently  wrong." 
The  appraisers  present  spoke  of  the  five  per  cent,  allowed  in  England  ;  to 
which  he  replied,  that  this  allowance  was  on  the  invoice,  and  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  length  of  the  goods. 

Mr.  Stone  assigns,  as  a  reason  for  making  this  visit  to  the  woollens  loft, 
that  "he  had  occasion  to  see  Mr.  Cairns"  on  business,  the  nature  of  which, 
is  explained  more  fully  by  other  witnesses.    The  cause  assigned  for  the 
frequent  interviews  which  took  place  between  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector,  and 
other  officers  of  the  customs,  with  this  witness,  is,  his  "peculiar  situation  " 
as  the  partner  of  Mr.  Samuel  Lawrence,  who  had  caused  the  seizure  of 
the  goods  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  and  who,  being  at  Lowell,  devolved  on 
him  the  duty  of  obtaining  testimony  from  the  New  York  custom-house  to- 
condemn  the  goods.    It  is  not  pretended,  by  either  Mr.  Stone  or  Mr.  Law- 
rence, that  they  have  any  knowledge  whatever  of  any  frauds  practised  by 
that  class  of  foreign  importers  of  woollens  usually  known  by  the  name  of 
Yorkshiremen,  except  that  which  is  derived  from  the  trial  in  Boston,  in  the 
case  of  the  United  States  vs.  Bottomly.    The  residue  of  their  testimony,  if 
it  may  be  so  called,  is  composed  of  conjecture,  of  rumor,  and  of  probabil- 
ities, in  respect  to  the  manner  in  which  frauds  on  the  revenue  might  be 
committed;  but" whether  they  have  been  so  committed  or  not,  neither  of' 
these  witnesses  pretend  to  possess  any  knowledge.    It  may  be  useful,, 
therefore,  to  present  the  prominent  features  of  this  case  against  Bottomly,. 
and  the  means  by  which  it  was  commenced  and  prosecuted  to  the  final 
condemnation  of  the  goods. 

The  seizure  took  place  in  an  auction  store  in  the  city  of  Boston,  on  the 
complaint  of  Samuel  Lawrence,  a  manufacturer  of  domestic  woollens,  who 
has  testified  that  he  knows  nothing  of  any  fraud  committed  by  any  im- 
porter in  the  city  of  New  York. 

Second.  The  case  was  continued  by  the  district  attorney  for  several 
months,  who,  in  the  mean  time,  visited  the  collector  of  New  York,  to  ob- 
tain evidence,  and  to  confer  with  the  district  attorney  for  the  southern  dis- 
trict of  New  York,  the  result  of  which  was,  that  he  informed  Mr.  Lawrence 
and  Mr.  Stone,  his  partner,  that  he  could  not  make  out  a  case;  that  sev- 
eral seizures  had  been  made  in  New  York,  under  similar  circumstances, 
and  that  he  was  informed  by  Messrs.  Hoyt  and  Butler  that  they  could  not 
make  out  a  case,  for  the  want  of  positive  evidence,  the  laws  not  being; 
strong  enough  to  reach  the  case. 

Third.  Nothing  daunted  by  this  opinion  of  the  law  officer  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, this  firm  of  woollen  manufacturers  obtained  permission,  through 
the  collector  of  New  York,  to  employ  counsel,  and  proceed  with  the  case, 
without,  the  aid  and  against,  the  consent  of  the  district  altorney.  Thus  the 
seizure  became  at  once  a  question  between  these  manufacturers  and  tliQ 
4  * 


50 


Rep.  No.  669. 


foreign  importer,  in  which  the  name  of  the  Government  was  used  nomi- 
nally to  subserve  their  purposes.  The  means  employed  to  obtain  testi- 
mony are  disclosed  in  part  in  the  deposition  of  Mr.  Stone,  for  which  pur- 
pose he  made  frequent  visits  to  Mr.  Hoyt  and  the  other  officers  of  the  cus- 
toms in  New  York.  He  at  length  succeeded  in  procuring  the  attendance 
of  several  subordinate  officers,  who  attended  at  the  trial,  and  gave  evidence. 
The  inducements  thrown  out  to  these  officers  are  not  fully  known;  but  the 
following  testimony  of  Joseph  R.  Bleecktr,  one  of  these  witnesses,  will  fur- 
nish data  upon  which  to  calculate  the  inducements  offered  by  Mr.  Stone,  to 
accomplish  his  object,  in  the  condemnation  of  the  goods  seized  on  the  oath 
of  his  partner,  Mr.  Lawrence.  The  witness  made  the  following  objections 
to  attending  the  trial  and  giving  testimony :  that  his  person  would  be  sub- 
ject to  arrest  for  debt  in  another  State  ;  that  his  pecuniary  situation  was 
such  that  lie  could  not  bear  the  expense ;  that  he  stood  in  the  relation  of 
informer,  and  might  lose  his  share  of  the  goods,  if  condemned.  One  objec- 
tion was  overcome  by  a  writ  of  protection,  procured  at  the  instance  of  Mr. 
Stone  ;  another  by  a  peremptory  order  from  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector  ;  and 
the  remaining  objection,  on  the  score  of  expense,  was  obviated  by  the 
pledge  of  Mr.  Stone  to  pay  all  the  expenses.  The  witness  states  that  he 
had  several  conversations  with  Mr.  Stone  and  the  lawyers  employed  by  the 
manufacturers,  about  frauds,  and  was  told  by  Stone  and  the  others  that  his 
.evidence  was  of  the  greatest  importance  to  the  "  manufacturing  interest" 
He  further  states,  that  his  expenses  and  those  of  George  A.  Wasson  were 
paid  by  Mr.  Stone. 

But  the  most  remarkable  feature  in  this  case  was,  the  production  of  a 
paper  called  the  confessions  of  James  Campbell,  late  deputy  collector  in 
the  custom-house  at  New  York.  This  man  acted  occasionally  as  entry 
clerk,  and  performed  other  services,  at  the  prompting  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  with 
whom  he  was  a  particular  confidant  and  favorite,  until  his  crimes  became 
known  to  the  public,  and  forthwith  Mr.  Hoyt  made  an  indignant  display 
of  moral  feeling,  and  thrust  him  from  his  desk.  The  name  of  James 
Campbell  very  soon  became  odious  in  New  York ;  the  juries  would  not 
listen  to  his  testimony ;  but  these  facts  were  not  so  well  understood  in  Bos- 
ton, and  hence  the  transfer  of  his  statement,  to  be  used  on  this  trial. 

The  first  scene  in  this  judicial  drama  ivas  to  prove,  by  his  own  confes- 
sion, the  infamy  of  this  witness ;  and  then  to  presume  that  his  connexion 
with  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  and  every  thing  else  necessary  for  the  condemna- 
tion of  the  goods,  is  taken  for  granted,  without  proof,  or  the  shadow  of 
proof,  having  any  bearing  on  the  claimant.  The  permit  necessary  to  the 
landing  of  the  goods  was  demanded,  under  the  first  count  in  the  declaration  ; 
it  was  in  the  hands  of  the  collector,  (Hoyt,)  and  carefully  withheld  from  the 
claimant  or  his  counsel.  The  original  invoices  were  also  called  for,  and 
they,  like  the  permits,  were  safeiy  lodged  at  the  custom-house  in  New 
York;  and  except  the  confessions,  as  they  are  called,  of  this  vile  culprit, 
which  were  in  the  most  extraordinary  manner  admitted  as  evidence,  with- 
out oath,  there  does  not  appear,  on  the  report  of  the  trial,  one  particle  of 
evidence,  either  to  identify  the  goods  or  the  vessels  in  which  they  were  im- 
ported, or  to  show  fraud,  or  an  attempt  at  fraud,  in  the  port  of  New  York, 
at  the  time  the  goods  were  entered,  passed,  and  the  duties  paid  by  James 
Bottomly,  jr.,  the  claimant.  Every  thing  was  left  to  conjecture  or  infer- 
ence, founded  on  the  most  trivial  circumstances,  such  as  the  removal  of  the 


0 


Rep.  No.  669. 


51 


marks  and  numbers  from  the  pieces  of  cloth,  which  is  the  common  practice 
of  merchants  after  the  entry  of  their  goods  and  the  payment  of  duties,  which 
the  court  deemed  sufficient  evidence  of  fraud  to  throw  the  burden  of  proof 
on  the  claimant,  that  the  goods  "  were  duly  landed  with  a  permit,"  alleging 
that  it  was  easy  for  the  claimant  to  do  so,  "if  the  facts  were  so;  that  the  fail- 
ure to  do  it  might  well  warrant  the  jury  in  concluding  against  the  claimant." 

This  charge  of  the  judge,  without  entering  into  the  legal  absurdities  which 
are  apparent  on  the  face  of  it,  was  made  with  a  full  knowledge  that  the  per- 
mit which  he  demanded  as  a  sine  qua  non  from  the  claimant,  was,  of  neces- 
sity, deposited  with  the  collector  at  New  York,  at  the  time  the  goods  were 
delivered  and  the  duties  paid. 

It  ought  not  to  escape  notice,  that  this  trial  was,  in  fact,  carried  on  by  a 
combination  of  manufacturers  interested  in  the  destruction  of  foreign  com- 
merce, and,  of  course,  in  the  persecution  of  the  importers ;  and  that  it  took 
place  in  a  manufacturing  district,  where,  without  effort,  a  jury  might  be 
found  ready  and  willing  to  give  any  verdict  which  that  pervading  and  pow- 
erful interest  might  require  for  its  protection. 

The  undersigned  has  no  knowledge  of  any  case,  in  the  judicial  history  of 
England  or  the  United  States,  where  a  penal  prosecution,  abandoned  by  the 
Government  on  the  ground  that  it  could  not  be  sustained,  was  permitted 
to  be  carried  on  by  a  vindictive  combination  of  individuals,  whose  wealth 
and  influence,  connected  with  local  feelings  and  prejudices,  might  enable 
them  to  carry  out  their  private  ends  in  the  name  of  that  Government 
whose  legitimate  law  officer  had  pronounced  the  party  prosecuted  innocent! 
The  case  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  whose  goods  were  seized,  tried,  and  con- 
demned, in  Boston,  constitutes  the  only  instance  on  record  in  the  civilized 
world  of  this  anomalous  character ;  but  yet  it  is  referred  to  by  Mr.  Law- 
rence and  his  partner,  Mr.  Stone,  as  the  basis  of  all  their  conjectures,  of 
which  they  profess  to  know  nothing,  of  frauds  on  the  revenue  alleged  to 
have  been  committed  by  foreign  importers  at  the  port  of  New  York.  Mr. 
Stone  goes  further,  and  lays  great  stress  on  the  confessions  of  James  Camp- 
bell to  establish  the  existence  of  such  frauds,  for  the  reason  that  said  Camp- 
bell, in  order  to  implicate  others,  has  grounded  their  guilt  on  his  own 
infamy — he  having  obtained,  as  a  condition  precedent  to  his  confessions,  a 
promise  of  forgiveness  and  indemnity  from  the  collector,  Hoyt,  who,  under 
an  apprehension  that  Campbell  intended  to  sail  for  Europe  on  the  10th  of 
October,  183S,  in  a  letter  to  the  district  attorney,  ordered  him  to  be  held  to 
heavy  bail  to  prevent  his  departure,  and  to  use  him  in  the  condemnation  of 
goods  put  under  seizure  by  the  collector,  and  for  other  like  purposes;  thus 
holding  a  rod  over  the  degraded  man  whom  he  had  used  for  corrupt  pur- 
poses, and,  so  long  as  he  would  be  believed  on  oath  in  the  courts  of  justice,  he 
designed  further  to  use,  in  the  consummation  of  his  acts  of  tyranny  and 
oppression  on  the  foreign  importers.  There  appears  to  have  been  a  com- 
bination of  the  manufacturers  of  domestic  woollens,  extending  from  Boston 
to  Baltimore,  connected  with  Hoyt,  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York, 
to  break  down  foreign  commerce  in  woollen  fabrics,  and  substitute  the  do- 
mestic article,  without  competition.  At  the  head  of  this  combination  stood 
Mr.  Samuel  Lawrence,  an  extensive  manufacturer  of  woollens  in  Lowell. 
He  caused  the  seizure  of  numerous  parcels  of  imported  woollens  found  in 
the  city  of  Boston,  but  failed  in  procuring  their  condemnation.  On  his  own 
complaint,  the  goods  of  Bottomly  were  seized  ;  and  by  his  exertions,  and 
those  of  his  partner,  Mr.  Stone,  as  hereinbefore  set  forth,  the  condemnation 


52 


Rep.  No.  669. 


of  the  goods  was  effected.  He  opened  a  correspondence,  both  in  Phila- 
delphia and  Baltimore,  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  the  seizure  of  all 
goods  belonging,  or  supposed  to  belong,  to  the  Yorkshire  importers,  as  will 
appear  in  the  official  communication  made  to  the  collector,  Hoyt,  by  George 
A.  Wasson,  on  the  1st  of  May,  1838,  (see  Appendix  A,)  a  copy  of  which, 
accompanies  this  report.  He  was  in  constant  intercourse  and  correspond- 
ence with  the  collector,  Hoyt,  and  other  selected  officers  of  the  customs  in 
New  York,  on  the  subject  of  seizures  here  and  elsewhere,  in  supplying  evi- 
dence from  his  own  house  in  Lowell,  and  the  payment  of  money  to  wit- 
nesses and  counsel  to  carry  out  their  views  in  the  depression  of  the  com- 
merce in  foreign  woollens  at  this  port.  He  states,  in  his  own  evidence,  that 
he  had  authority  to  send  on  an  appraiser,  to  be  placed  in  the  woollen  loft, 
and  that  he  made  "  considerable  efforts  to  find  such  a  man,  but  did  not  suc- 
ceed." He  believes  that  Mr.  Bradley  would  have  been  a  suitable  person,, 
he  being  a  manufacturer  of  domestic  woollens,  and  admits  that  he  might 
have  suggested  this  place  to  him,  but  does  not  remember  to  have  done  so;, 
but  does  not  believe  that  Mr.  Hoyt  offered  to  appoint  an  appraiser  recom- 
mended by  the  manufacturers  of  Boston,  Lowell,  or  any  other  place,  except 
to  hi?nselj,  considering  his  connexion  with  that  branch  of  business  as  prop- 
erly and  efficiently  represented  in  his  person. 

It  appears,  also,  by  the  statement  of  St.  G.  W.  Teackle,  of  Baltimore,  that 
Mr.  Lawrence  offered  to  advance  $500  to  counsel,  to  assist  in  the  trials  of 
seizures  in  Baltimore;  but  the  agent  of  the  manufacturers  in  that  city,  at 
the  trials,  refused  to  pay  the  money,  finding  it  unnecessary,  as  the  cases 
were  prosecuted  by  the  district  attorney  and  other  counsel  sent  on  by  the 
manufacturers  from  Philadelphia.  The  result  of  this  warfare  on  the  im- 
portation of  woollens  from  abroad  is,  in  part,  disclosed  and  admitted  by 
Mr.  Lawrence,  in  his  answer  to  the  fifteenth  question  put  by  the  commis- 
sioners, in  which  he  says:  "From  all  the  intormation  I  can  gather,  there 
are  less  woollen  goods  from  England  in  the  country,  and  on  their  way,, 
than  for  many  years  past."  This  admission  goes  far  to  establish  the  original 
design  of  the  combination,  as  well  as  its  successful  consummation.  How 
far  these  proceedings  have  deteriorated  the  public  revenue  may  well  be 
imagined  ;  but  there  is  positive  proof  on  this  poinr,  which  will  be  noticed 
in  its  proper  place.  These  disinterested  services  the  parties  claim  to  have 
rendered  from  the  purest  impulses  of  patriotism,  to  protect  the  revenue 
from  fraud  or  evasion,  and  to  render  their  valuable  aid  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  execution  of  his  constitutional  duty  to  "  take  care 
that  ihe  laws  are  faithfully  executed."  It  may  be  that  the  country  and 
Government  are  much  indebted  to  them  for  filling  the  measure  of  their 
own  avarice  at  the  expense  of  the  public  Treasury,  and  for  having  pro- 
duced a  state  of  things  so  highly  favorable  to  their  own  interests,  as  testi- 
fied to  by  Mr.  Lawrence — that, in  the  year  1S41,  there  are  fewer  woollens 
from  England  in  the  country,  and  on  their  way,  than  for  many  years  past. 
Mr.  Stone  and  his  partner  (Mr.  Lawrence)  both  profess  to  have  been 
actuated  solely  by  a  desire  to  protect  the  public  revenue  from  frauds;  but 
this  idea  comes  in  conflict  with  another  declaration  made  by  Mr.  Stone, 
that  he  was  induced  to  take  the  active  part  he  did  because,  at  that  time, 
he  was  "  largely  concerned  in  the  Middlesex  woollen  mills  at  Lowell,  and 
was  suffering  in  consequence  of  large  quantities  of  woollens  being  sold 
weekly  at  auction  in  Boston,  at  prices  which,  our  importers  stated,  wer 
below  what  they  could  import  the  goods  at."    Whether  this  latter  motive 


Rep.  No.  669. 


53 


'predominated  in  the  mind  of  the  witness  over  the  anxiety  he  expresses  to 
protect  the  public  Treasury,  must  be  left  to  the  judgment  of  an  impartial 
public.  As  a  corollary  to  these  extracts  from  the  depositions  from  Messrs. 
Stone  &  Lawrence,  it  appears,  by  the  testimony  of  Arthur  French  and 
•Charles  Bradley,  woollen  manufacturers,  that  an  effort  was  made  to  pro- 
cure the  services  of  Mr.  Bradley  as  an  appraiser  in  the  woollens  loft  at 
■the  custom-house  in  New  York.  Mr.  Lawrence,  representing  the  manu- 
facturing interest,  obtained  the  promise  of  Mr.  Hoyt  to  appoint  any  one 
an  appraiser  whom  he  might  recommend  ;  he  made  every  effort  in  his 
power  to  find  such  a  person,  without  success,  but  is  not  certain  that  he 
proposed  it  to  Mr.  Bradley.  It  became,  however,  known  in  Boston  that 
such  a  promise  had  been  made,  doubtless  through  Mr.  Lawrence ;  and 
Mr.  French  testifies  that  he  held  a  conversation  with  a  firm  of  merchants  in 
Boston  interested  in  the  woollen  manufacture,  and  that  he  expressed  his 
opinion  that  an  intelligent,  skilful,  and  discerning  person  ought  to  be 
placed  in  the  woollens  loft,  as  an  appraiser  of  foreign  woollens,  for  the 
protection  of  the  domestic  manufacture ;  and  that  it  would  be  to  their 
interest  to  contribute  a  large  sum  of  money  annually  to  pay  for  the  ser- 
vices of  such  a  person :  and,  at  the  same  time,  mentioned  that  the  sum 
of  five  thousand  dollars,  including  the  salary  allowed  by  the  Govern- 
ment, would  be  a  suitable  compensation.  "  Some  one"  then  present  re- 
marked that  Mr.  Hoyt  would  be  willing  to  appoint'  such  person  as  the 
New  England  manufacturers  would  unite  in  recommending ;  expressed 
his  gratification  that  Mr.  Hoyt  was  beginning  to  understand  the  case,  and 
was  willing  to  provide  a  remedy.  On  the  same  day,  Mr.  French  states 
that  he  met  Mr.  Charles  A.  Bradley  in  the  street,  and,  well  knowing  that  he 
was  entirely  qualified  for  the  position,  said  to  him,  u  Will  you  accept  an 
appointment  as  an  appraiser  of  woollen  goods  at  the  custom-house  in  New 
York?"  He  answered,  "Yes,  if  they  will  pay  me  enough. "  The  witness 
•then  said  that,  as  Mr.  Hoyt  was  willing  to  appoint  such  appraiser  as  might 
be  recommended  by  the  manufacturers,  they  would  make  him  up  an  an- 
nual salary  of  five  thousand  dollars. 

Mr.  Bradley,  in  his  deposition,  recognises  the  same  conversation;  but 
adds,  that  he  was  not  formally  offered  the  appointment  on  the  terms  men- 
tioned, and  that,  if  it  had  been  so  offered,  he  should  have  declined  it.  This 
arrangement,  as  agreed  on  between  Mr.  Hoyt  and  Mr.  Lawrence,  having 
failed,  offers  were  made  to  some  of  the  subordinate  officers  of  the  customs, 
of  pecuniary  compensation,  to  watch  over  the  interests  of  the  domestic 
manufacturers  in  the  woollens  loft  of  the  public  store. 

George  R.  Ives,  late  a  merchant  in  New  York,  one  of  the  firm  of  Labron 
&  Ives,  who  were  particularly  favored  at  the  custom-house,  informed  Mr. 
John  Taylor,  jr.,  as  he  testifies  in  his  deposition,  "  that  the  Eastern  manu- 
facturers had  offered  him  two  thousand  dollars  a  year  if  he  would  act  as  a 
spy  for  them,  and  give  information  who  was  doing  the  largest  woollen  im- 
porting business,  and  which  of  them  was  selling  most  woollens  at  auction, 
and  other  matters,  generally,  about  the  importers.  I  cannot  state  positive- 
ly that  any  particular  name  was  mentioned  by  Mr.  Ives  as  having  offered 
him  this  money,  but  am  fully  under  the  impression  that  he  said  Mr.  Samuel 
Lawrence,  of  the  firm  of  Lawrence  &  Stone,  of  Boston,  was  the  person." 

Subsequently,  this  same  Mr.  Ives  was  examined  before  the  commission- 
ers, and,  in  answer  to  question  seven,  denies  that  he  or  any  of  his  partners 
had  authority  from  any  Eastern  manufacturer  to  offer  a  reward  or  compensa- 


54 


Rip.  No.  669. 


tion  to  any  officer  of  the  customs  in  New  York,  to  protect  their  interests  and 
watch  the  importers  of  woollens  ;  but,  in  his  answer  to  the  eighth  question,, 
he  admits  "  that,  in  1S39,  after  the  numerous  seizures  of  woollens,  or  about 
that  period,  he  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Samuel  Lawrence,  of  Boston, 
to  this  effect :  that  the  Eastern  manufacturers  could  well  afford  to  em- 
ploy agents  to  watch  their  interests,  and  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the  various 
imported  woollens  into  this  and  other  ports;"  and,  further,  "that  such 
agents  would  help  greatly  to  protect  the  interest  of  the  domestic  manufac- 
turers ;  and  I  think  Mr.  Lawrence  assented  to  this  opinion."  Again,  he 
says  :  "  I  mentioned  the  subject  to  other  parties,  and  perhaps  to  custom- 
house officers  ;  but  not  with  a  view  to  induce  them  to  accept  such  agency, 
or  that  I  was  authorized  to  employ  them" 

These  equivocal  answers  correspond  with  the  usual  manner  of  Mr.  Ive^s 
in  answering  questions  put  to  him  by  the  commissioners;  he  having,  at 
least  ono  ne  occasion,  sworn  positively  to  a  fact,  which  he  afterwards,  under 
oath,  as  positively  contradicted.  But  he  does  not  undertake  to  contradict 
the  evidence  of  John  Taylor,  jr.,  as  to  an  offer  having  been  made  to  him  of 
two  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  in  consideration  of  the  service  mentioned. 
Mr.  Taylor,  at  his  instance,  was  recalled  and  cross-examined  on  this  point, 
who  reaffirmed  his  original  testimony,  after  Mr.  Ives  had  waited  on  him 
and  importuned  him  to  modify  it. 

The  next  witness  on  this  subject  is  Jeremiah  Lounsberry,  an  assistant 
appraiser  in  the  woollens  loft,  who  testifies  as  follows  : 

"  In  the  spring  or  summer  of  1839,  Mr.  George  R.  Ives  informed  me  that 
he  was  authorized,  on  behalf  of  the  Eastern  manufacturers,  to  give  me  a 
salary  of  two  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  in  addition  to  what  I  was  then 
receiving,  if  I  would  ivork  for  them.  By  '  working  for  them/  I  under- 
stood, of  course,  that  I  was  to  raise  goods  and  report  them  for  seizure.  He 
said  he  was  authorized  to  make  the  offer;  and,  if  I  recollect  right,  Mr.  S. 
Lawrence,  of  Boston,  was  named  as  the  person  who  would  pay  the  money. 
He  said,  if  I  would  consent,  he  would  arrange  it  immediately.  The  proposal 
I  treated  with  contempt.  Shortly  after,  Mr.  Cairns  was  sent  to  the  woollens 
loft."  This  witness  was  also  applied  to  by  Mr.  Ives  to  modify  his  testimo- 
ny, which  he  declined  doing. 

Jos.  R  Bleecker,  late  assistant  cashier,  also  testifies  oir  the  subject  of  pecu- 
niary compensation  offered  for  the  same  purpose,  by  Mr.  Ives  and  Geo.  A. 
Wasson,  public  storekeeper.  He  says:  "  In  the  course  of  conversation, 
about  two  years  since,  Geo.  R.  Ives  mentioned  to  me  that  Lawrence,  the 
woollen  manufacturer,  would  give  $1,000  per  annum  to  any  person  who 
would  keep  a  sharp  lookout  on  the  Yorkshire  importers,  to  prevent  them 
from  entering  goods  falsely  invoiced.  Mr.  Wasson  also  mentioned  the  same 
thing  to  me."  Thus  the  evasive  denial  of  Mr.  Ives,  that  he  had  been  of- 
fered a  compensation  of  two  thousand  dollars  per  annum  to  act  as  a  spy 
on  the  Yorkshire  importers,  is  contradicted  by  the  positive  testimony  of 
John  Taylor,  jr.,  to  whom  he  imparted  the  information  ;  and  his  further 
denial  that  he  had  been  authorized  to  offer  a  compensation  for  the  like  pur- 
pose to  any  officer  of  the  customs,  or  that  he  ever  made  any  such  offer, 
whether  authorized  or  not,  is  expressly  and  effectually  overthrown  by  the 
depositions  of  Jeremiah  Lounsberry,  assistant  appraiser,  and  Jos.  R.  Bleeck- 
er, late  assistant  cashier  of  tire  custom-house,  as  will  be  seen  in  the  above 
extracts.  The  following  facts  may  be  considered  as  clearly  established  by 
the  evidence  of  the  manufacturers  themselves : 


Rep.  No.  669. 


55 


First.  That  frequent  and  confidential  communications  were  held  be- 
tween Jesse  Hoyt,  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  and  Messrs.  Law- 
rence &  Stone,  on  the  subject  of  the  standard  of  value  to  be  fixed  at  the 
appraiser's  department  on  foreign  woollens,  and  seizures  of  goods  then 
made,  and  about  to  be  made,  of  imported  woollens. 

Second.  That  Mr.  Hoyt  promised  Mr.  Lawrence  that  he  would  appoint 
any  domestic  manufacturer  of  woollen  goods,  who  might  be  recommended 
by  him,  as  an  appraiser  in  the  woollens  loft  at  the  New  York  custom-house. 

Third.  That  Mr.  Lawrence  made  considerable  efforts  to  obtain  such  a 
man,  but  did  not  succeed. 

Fourth.  That  the  offer  of  Mr.  Hoyt  became  known,  through  some  chan- 
nel, to  the  manufacturers  of  woollens  in  Boston. 

Fifth.  That,  after  consultation  with  some  of  these  manufacturers,  Mr. 
Arthur  French  t\  ade  the  proposition,  informally,  to  Mr.  Charles  A.  Brad- 
ley, a  manufacturer  of  woollens,  and  suggested  the  sum  of  five  thousand 
dollars  as  the  salary  that  would  be  paid,  by  contribution  of  the  manufac- 
turers, if  he  would  accept  the  appointment. 

Sixth.  That  the  appointment  was  not  tendered  by  the  collector  (Hoyt) 
to  Mr.  Bradley  in  a  formal  manner;  but  he  states,  that  if  it  had  been  so 
tendered,  with  the  salary  mentioned  by  Mr.  Freuch,  he  would  have  de- 
clined it. 

Seventh.  That  the  failure  to  obtain  the  services  of  Mr.  Bradley  was  fol- 
lowed by  an  attempt,  made  through  Geo.  R.  Ives,  who  was  intimately  as- 
sociated with  the  Eastern  manufacturers,  whether  with  or  without  author- 
ity is  not  known,  to  engage  the  services  of  Mr.  Lounsberry,  the  assistant 
appraiser, ';  to  work"  for  the  Eastern  manufacturers  ;  or,  in  other  words, 
as  the  witness  understood  it,  to  raise  and  report  woollen  goods  for  seizure. 
An  offer  was  made  to  this  appraiser,  as  he  testifies,  of  two  thousand  dol- 
lars per  annum,  to  be  paid  down,  if  he  would  accept  it.  The  offer  was 
spurned  with  contempt,  and  was  not  repeated. 

Eighth.  That  a  similar  offer  was  made  by  Ives  and  Wasson  to  any  offi- 
cer of  the  customs  who  would  perform  the  service  in  presence  of  Joseph 
R.  Bleecker. 

The  evidence  by  which  this  summary  of  facts  is  established  has  been 
drawn  principally  from  the  largest  manufacturers  of  woollens,  and  from 
officers  of  the  customs  in  New  York,  sustained  by  the  official  correspond- 
ence of  the  collector,  Hoyt.  It  would,  therefore,  be  idle  to  doubt  the  ex- 
istence of  a  distinct  understanding  or  connexion  between  the  collector  and 
the  manufacturers  of  woollens,  to  carry  into  effect  the  system  which  was 
afterwards  fully  developed,  of  throwing  embarrassments  in  the  way  of  the 
regular  importations  of  woollens  from  abroad,  and  thereby  giving  to  the 
domestic  fabric  the  entire  control  of  the  market. 

The  next  plan  in  order,  according  to  the  arrangement  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  was 
to  call  in  to  the  aid  of  the  appraisers  such  merchants  as  he  might  select  for 
the  purpose,  believing,  as  he  did,  that  this  expedient  would  prove  an  ade- 
quate substitute  for  the  special  appraiser,  to  be  recommended  by  the  man- 
ufacturers, and  appointed  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  which  Mr.  Lawrence  states  he 
had  not  succeeded. 

Whatever  may  be  said  to  palliate  or  justify  these  attempts  of  the  manu- 
facturing interest  to  introduce  into  the  New  York  custom-house  a  system 
of  valuation  which,  in  its  effects,  would  be  equivalent  to  a  high  tariff  of 
protection,  it  will  not  be  questioned,  that  if  such  influences  can  be  legiti- 


Hep.  No.  669. 


mately  exerted  over  the  foreign  commerce  of  the  country,  for  its  destruction, 
by  a  mercenary  arrangement  with  the  collector  of  this  port,  which  receives 
so  large  a  share'of  importations,  there  is  no  principle  appertaining  to  the 
equality  of  rights  and  of  taxation,  secured  to  all  parts  of  the  Confederacy  in 
the  Constitution,  under  which  all  the  other  great  interests  of  the  country 
could  be  denied  the  like  privilege  of  being  represented  in  the  New  York 
custom-house,  for  the  extension  of  commerce,  by  recommending  appraisers 
for  the  various  lofts  in  which  foreign  merchandise  is  deposited  for  appraise- 
ment. The  dangerous  tendency  of  such  innovations  on  the  supremacy  of 
the  laws,  through  the  operation  of  conflicting  interests,  making  this  custom- 
house the  arena  of  the  combatants,  must  be  apparent  to  every  reflecting 
mind;  and  the  mischiefs  would  be  doubly  augmented  by  allowing  one 
great  branch  of  home  industry,  confined  to  particular  States  and  sections  of 
the  Union,  to  combine  with  the  collector  of  this  port  for  purposes  identified 
with  the  advancement  of  their  separate  pecuniary  gains,  at  the  sacrifice  of 
all  other  branches  of  industry  and  the  deterioration  of  the  public  revenue. 

Let  it  be  supposed  that  the  chamber  of  commerce  or  the  mercantile  com- 
munity of  a  Southern  city  should  have  sent  a  deputation  to  the  collector  of 
the  port  of  New  York,  complaining  that  the  standard  of  value  fixed  by  the 
appraisers  on  foreign  woollens  was  too  high,  and  destructive  in  its  effects 
on  that  branch  of  importations,  is  it  within  the  range  of  probability  that 
Mr.  Hoyt  would  have  said  to  such  deputation,  *  I  will  appoint  any  one 
whom  you  recommend  an  appraiser  in  the  woollens  loft,  to  protect  your 
interest  ?"  There  is  not  a  man  in  the  country  who  would  risk  his  reputa- 
tion for  sanity  by  the  expression  of  his  belief  that  such  a  reply  would  have 
been  made  or  such  a  privilege  granted  by  Mr.  Hoyt.  But  Mr.  Lawrence, 
a  woollen  manufacturer,  informs  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  the  name  of  the  Eastern 
manufacturers,  that  the  standard  of  value,  affixed  to  foreign  woollens  by  the 
appraisers  at  the  New  York  custom-house,  is  too  low,  and  ought  to  be  rais- 
ed to  protect  the  domestic  manufacturers  of  that  fabric.  Mr.  Hoyt,  without 
hesitation,  replies,  assenting  to  the  necessity  of  raising  the  standard  of  value; 
but,  inasmuch  as  he  cannot  rely  on  the  appraisers  to  aid  him  in  raising  it,  he 
informs  Mr.  Lawrence  that,  to  accomplish  the  end  desired,  he  would  appoint 
and  place  in  the  woollens  loft,  as  an  appraiser,  any  person  whom  he  might 
recommend,  who  would  co-operate  in  bringing  the  standard  to  a  point  cor- 
responding with  the  views  and  interests  of  the  domestic  manufacturers. 
Failing  in  this  expedient,  and  in  all  others  which  had  been  tried  or  sug- 
gested between  the  parties,  it  remains  to  be  seen  by  what  means  the  de- 
struction of  commerce  in  foreign  woollens  was  ultimately  accomplished. 

The  new  device  resorted  to  by  Mr.  Hoyt  to  raise  the  standard  of  value, 
and  thereby  subject  foreign  woollens  to  seizure,  was,  in  all  cases,  after  the 
regular  appraisers  had  examined  and  appraised  the  goods,  to  call  in  such 
<merchants  as  he  supposed  would  act  in  accordance  with  his  views,  to  re- 
appraise the  same  goods,  and  overrule  the  opinion  of  the  appraisers  ap- 
pointed by  the  Government.  This  system  commenced  in  1838,  .under  which 
numerous  seizures  were  made  and  suits  commenced,  some  of  which  were 
not  brought  to  trial  until  the  spring  of  1839.  In  most  of  these  early  cases 
the  collector  was  defeated,  and  the  goods  libelled  were  restored  to  the 
claimants  ;  an  enumeration  of  these  cases  is  deemed  unnecessary.  The 
history  of  the  seizures  ancf  trials  during  the  year  1838  are  not  of  sufficient 
Importance  to  require  particular  comment.  It  was  known  to  the  collector 
M  this  port  that  the  year  1839  would  be  a  season  of  the  largest  amount 


Rep.  No.  669. 


57 


of  importations  of  foreign  woollens  which  had  occurred  for  many  years  pre- 
ceding it.  He  accordingly  made  the  necessary  preparations  for  heavy 
seizures,  and  for  a  substitution  of  a  new  standard  of  value  in  the  apprais- 
er's department,  to  favor  his  views  in  this  respect. 

On  the  16th  March,  1839,  Mr.  Hoyt  addressed  an  official  letter  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  this  subject,  in  which  he  states  :  "  Great  com- 
plaints still  exist  among  manufacturers  and  merchants,  in  relation  to  the 
importation  of  woollen  goods,  upon  the  ground  that  they  find  their  way 
into  market,  and  are  sold  for  less  than  they  can  be  fairly  imported.  I 
have  taken  great  pains  to  search  out  the  difficulty,  but  I  have  not  been 
able  to  come  to  a  satisfactory  result,  from  the  present  state  of  things,  as  they 
are  represented  to  me.  I  have,  therefore,  adopted  the  plan  of  examining 
every  package. " 

He  further  states:  "  I  am  apprehensive  that  the  standard  of  value  fixed 
by  our  appraisers  for  woollen  goods  is  too  low  ;  I  have  frequently  so  stated 
to  them,  but  they  do  not  raise  it ;  the  manufacturers  so  inform  me.  I 
would  be  glad,  therefore,  if  you  would  write  a  letter  to  them,  making  the 
suggestion,  but  not  as  coming  from  me.  It  is  my  intention  to  call  in  others 
to  examine  the  goods  by  the  packet  referred  to,  but  /  would  rather  the 
suggestion  would  come  from  you." 

Prior  to  this  letter  to  the  Secretary,  Mr.  Hoyt  addressed  instructions  to 
the  principal  appraisers,  referring  to  their  general  duties  under  the  laws 
creating  that  department  of  the  custom-house,  and  informs  them  that,  in 
the  execution  of  those  duties,  they  are  to  adopt  the  means  best  calculated 
to  serve  the  interests  of  the  United  States,  and  to  give  every  accommoda- 
tion to  the  merchants  not  inconsistent  with  those  interests.  He  further  calls 
their  attention  to  the  fact,  that  they  are  provided  with  a  number  of  assist- 
ants, recognised  by  law,  and  several  inspectors  of  the  customs,  who  are 
placed  under  their  control,  subject  to  his  special  directions,  from  time 
to  ti.ne.  The  law  creating  the  office  of  appraiser  prohibited  any  one 
filling  that  office  from  the  receipt  of  any  portion  of  goods  seized  and  con- 
demned, so  as  to  remove  from  them  all  temptation  to  raise  the  standard  of 
value,  and  thereby  subject  goods  to  seizure,  with  a  hope  of  pecuniary  gain 
in  case  they  are  condemned.  This  was  considered  a  necessary  safeguard, 
to  purify  the  system,  and  to  protect  foreign  commerce  against  illegal  seiz- 
ures and  oppressive  embarrassments  ;  but  of  what  avail  is  this  salutary  re- 
straint on  the  appraisers,  if  the  collector  is  permitted,  as  he  was  by  the  au- 
thorities at  Washington,  to  dictate  the  manner  in  which  the  duties  of  the 
appraisers  were  to  be  performed — to  thrust  into  the  public  store  inspectors 
of  the  customs,  without  the  consent  of  the  appraisers,  and  say  to  them,  in 
general  orders,  "  You,  and  every  person  under  your  control,  must  obey  and 
be  subject  to  any  special  directions  1  may  find  it  necessary  to  give  ?" 
In  this  manner  the  spirit  of  the  law  is  defeated,  its  express  provisions  vio- 
lated ;  and  the  protection  designed  to  be  given  to  the  commerce  of  the 
country,  is  rendered  nugatory  by  the  act  of  the  collector,  under  the  sanction 
•of  the  Treasury  Department,  by  which  the  will  of  the  collector,  who  is  in- 
terested in  the  seizure  and  condemnation  of  goods,  is  made  the  rule  of  ac- 
tion for  the  appraisers,  who  are  denied  such  participation,  for  the  wise  pur- 
pose of  redeeming  their  judgments  from  the  corrupting  influence  of  these 
temptations.  This  is  one  example,  which  ought  not  to  be  overlooked,  of 
the  tyranny  practised  by  Mr.  Hoyt  over  every  officer  of  the  custom-house, 
whom  he  regarded,  without  distinction,  as  his  subordinates,  and  bound  to 
conform  to  whatever  order  he  might  think  proper  to  give,  under  the  terror 


Rep.  No.  669. 


of  removal  from  office,  and  the  overshadowing  power  of  the  authorities  at 
the  seat  of  the  Federal  Government.  These  facts  are  amply  sustained  by 
the  evidence  taken  before  the  commissioners,  and  the  correspondence  of 
Mr.  Hoyt  with  the  Treasury  Department,  copies  of  which  accompany  this 
report. 

Thus  armed  with  unlimited  power  over  the  commerce  of  every  descrip- 
tion at  this  port,  Mr.  Hoyt  adopted  such  measures  as  were  suggested  to  him 
by  merchants,  manufacturers,  and  others,  to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  the 
allegations  and  rumors,  to  which  he  so  often  alluded,  as  a  justification  of  his 
acts,  that  frauds  had  been  practised,  and  were  in  progress,  to  defraud  the 
revenue,  by  undervaluation,  fraudulent  invoices,  and  other  devices,  and  to 
prove  the  necessity  of  raising  the  standard  of  value,  especially  of  foreign 
woollens,  to  which  his  attention  had  been  called  by  Mr.  Lawrence,  simul- 
taneously with  his  appointment  to  the  office  of  collector. 

The  arrival  of  the  ship  Independence,  from  Liverpool,  with  a  full  cargo 
of  cloths  and  cassimeres,  furnished  him,  as  he  supposed,  with  a  favorable 
opportunity,  not  only  to  detect  the  undervaluations  and  fraudulent  invoices 
by  which  the  payment  of  full  duties  had  been  evaded,  but  also  to  afford 
him  a  pretext  for  the  seizure  of  the  whole  cargo  of  that  ship.  He  accord- 
ingly ordered  every  package  of  woollens,  imported  in  the  Independence,  to 
the  public  store,  for  examination  and  appraisement.  He  overlooked  the 
principal  appraiser,  whose  legal  duty  it  was  to  examine  and  appraise  all 
goods  brought  to  the  public  store,  and  resorted  to  a  merchant  of  his  own 
selection  to  perform  that  duty,  in  connexion  with  Mr.  Lounsberry,  an  assist- 
ant appraiser. 

Mr.  John  Robinson,  a  distinguished  merchant  of  New  York,  chosen  by 
Mr.  Hoyt  to  value  this  cargo,  was,  at  that  time,  and  is  now,  regarded  and 
respected  as  a  high-minded,  honorable  man,  and  better  qualified  to  affix  a 
value  on  foreign  woollen  goods  than  two-thirds  of  the  foreign  importers 
in  this  city,  he  being  himself  largely  engaged  in  that  branch  of  commerce. 
He  proceeded,  with  the  aid  of  Mr.  Lounsberry,  to  examine  these  goods, 
and  all  others  of  a  similar  character,  placed  before  them  in  the  woollens 
loft,  without  the  assistance  of  invoices,  or  any  other  means  by  which  to 
guide  their  judgment  of  the  value  of  the  goods,  other  than  the  character 
and  quality  of  the  goods,  as  they  were  exhibited  to  their  view.  Mr.  Rob- 
inson performed  the  duty  assigned  to  him  by  the  collector,  and,  being 
called  before  the  commissioners,  he  testified  as  follows : 

u  On  or  about  the  20th  of  March,  1839,  I  was  sent  for  to  the  custom- 
house, and  directed  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector,  to  assist  in  examining 
woollen  goods  of  the  cargo  of  the  ship  Independence,  from  Liverpool.  I 
asked  the  collector  whether  I  should  confine  the  examination  to  tha 
cargo  ?  The  reply  was,  that  I  was  to  examine  all  that  were  placed  be- 
fore me  by  the  appraisers. 

u  From  March  20th  to  April  6th,  1839,  inclusive,  Lounsberry,  one  of 
the  assistant  appraisers  in  the  woollen  department,  and  myself,  examined, 
very  carefully,  upwards  of  500  packages  of  merchandise,  chiefly  woollen 
cloths  and  cassimeres ;  the  result  of  which  was,  the  conviction  that  there 
was  no  attempt  to  defraud  the  revenue  by  falsely  invoicing  goods  below 
their  value  ;  for,  with  the  exception  of  two  small  trusses  of  cassimeres, 
which  were  appraised  at  ten  per  cent,  higher  than  invoiced,  all  were  found 
correct.  I  made  a  report,  at  the  request  of  the  collector,  of  the  marks  and 
numbers  of  all  packages  examined,  with  such  remarks  attached  as  I  thought 


Rep.  No.  669. 


59 


applicable,  and  which  I  understood  was  to  be  sent  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.    I  delivered  the  same  to  Mr.  Hoyt." 

This  valuation  was  professedly  made  under  the  orders  of  the  collector, 
by  men  of  his  own  choosing,  as  a  test  of  the  verity  of  the  constant  clam- 
ors, on  the  part  of  the  regular  traders  and  manufacturers,  that  the  rev- 
enue was  defrauded  by  false  invoices  and  undervaluations,  and  that  wool- 
lens were  selling  at  auction  at  prices  utterly  ruinous  to  importers.  The 
collector,  as  a  faithful  public  officer,  cannot  be  presumed  to  have  enter- 
tained a  wish  beyond  the  protection  of  the  public  interest,  if  the  payment 
of  duties  had  been  evaded,  as  was  alleged,  or  the  vindication  of  the  im- 
porters from  the  imputations  cast  on  them  by  the  manufacturers  or  mer- 
chants, which  had  excited  the  suspicions  of  the  collector,  as  he  states,  and 
on  the  basis  of  which  he  instituted  this  extraordinary  and  special  investi- 
gation. The  issue  was  fairly  made  by  the  collector  himself,  and  submit- 
ted to  judges  of  his  own  choosing.  The  result  is  shown  in  the  above 
deposition  of  Mr.  Robinson,  and  confirmed  by  the  deposition  of  Mr. 
Lounsberry,  who  testifies,  that  having  u  examined  carefully  upwards  of 
five  hundred  packages  of  merchandise,  chiefly  woollen  cloths  and  cassi- 
meres,  they  were  satisfied  that  there  was  no  attempt  to  defraud  the  rev- 
enue by  invoicing  goods  below  their  value."  And,  further,  u  that,  with 
the  exception  of  two  small  trusses  of  cassimeres.  which  were  appraised  at 
ten  per  cent,  higher  than  invoiced,  all  were  found  correct." 

This  result,  it  would  seem  to  any  reasonable  man,  ought,  for  the  time 
being,  at  least,  to  have  quieted  the  suspicions  and  apprehensions  of  Mr. 
Hoyt  on  the  subject  to  which  it  relates.  But  he  discloses  the  sole  purpose 
for  which  he  had  instituted  the  examination  of  these  goods  by  his  lamen- 
tations over  the  failure  of  his  experiment,  in  his  letter  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  ;  in  which  he  says,  u  this  experiment,  contrary  to  expec- 
tation, proved  wholly  abortive  ;"  and,  further,  that,  not  being  satisfied  with 
the  report  of  the  special  appraisers  appointed  by  him  to  value  the  goods 
imported  by  the  Independence,  he  says:  "I  therefore  looked  about  for 
some  other  expedient,  to  form  a  further  test  of  the  question."  He 
informs  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  letter  (see  Appendix  B)  to 
the  Department,  of  May  26th,  1840,  u  that,  in  order  to  test  the  accuracy 
of  the  judgment  and  knowledge  of  the  appraisers,  1  had  employed  Mr. 
John  Robinson,  an  importer  highly  recommended  by  the  merchants  refer- 
red to,  to  attend  the  appraisers'  stores,  and  assist  them  in  the  examination. 
He  did  attend  for  the  period  of  sixteen  days,  but  without  any  beneficial 
result  to  the  United  States;  and  it  was  not  until  the  month  of  July  fol- 
lowing that  I  discovered  I  had  made  a  mistake  in  the  selection  of  the 
individual  recommended  to  me." 

Mr.  Robinson  had  been  reeommended  as  a  suitable  appraiser,  and  of 
course,  the  best  that  could  be  found  to  answer  the  purpose  by  the  com- 
plaining merchants  and  manufacturers;  and  it  was  expected  that  he  would 
fully  confirm  all  the  alleged  frauds  on  the  revenue  by  fraudulent  invoices,, 
and  thereby  enable  the  collector  to  make  seizures  and  raise  the  standard 
of  value  in  the  appraiser's  department.  This,  it  is  evident,  was  the  only 
purpose  designed  to  be  accomplished  by  ordering  the  whole  of  the  cargo 
of  the  Independence  to  the  public  store  for  examination,  but  the  experi- 
ment failed  ;  the  goods  were  found  fairly  invoiced,  by  an  appraisement 
made  in  the  absence  of  any  document  to  show  the  invoice  price,  and  the 
importing  merchants  were  acquitted  of  all  intention  to  defraud  the  revenue. 


60 


Bep.  No.  669. 


This  was  the  *  unkindest  cut  of  all"  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  he  tells  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  that  he  has  at  last  discovered  that  he  had  been  guilty 
of  a  great  mistake  in  selecting  Mr.  Robinson  as  an  appraiser,  and  that 
some  other  expedient  must  be  resorted  to  for  the  interest  of  the  United 
States ;  or,  in  other  words,  to  carry  out  the  original  view  of  Mr.  Hoyt 
-and  his  allies,  the  manufacturers  of  woollens,  to  destroy  that  branch  of 
foreign  commerce. 

The  character  of  Mr.  Fobinson  was,  at  the  date  of  the  appraisement 
made  by  him  of  the  cargo  of  the  Independence,  and  is  at  this  day,  above 
all  reproach  ;  and  it  may  be  safely  averred,  that  no  merchant  in  New 
York  enjoys  in  a  higher  degree  the  confidence  of  the  mercantile  commu- 
nity than  this  gentleman  ;  nor  is  there  one  individual  better  skilled  in  the 
European  value  of  woollen  goods,  if  his  general  reputation  among  all 
classes  of  importers  for  such  knowledge  may  be  relied  on,  for  on  that 
subject,  there  does  not  exist  any  difference  of  opinion,  and  his  integrity 
stands  equally  unquestioned.  Mr.  Hoyt,  therefore,  is  assuredly  correct 
in  the  conclusion  at  which  he  has  arrived,  that  he  committed  a  capital 
blunder  in  selecting  such  a  man  to  endorse  his  corrupt  purposes. 

The  next  "  expedient"  resorted  to  by  the  collector  to  carry  out  his  sys- 
tem of  seizures,  after  the  "abortive"  experiment  in  the  case  of  the  Inde- 
pendence, was  to  call  in  merchants  to  overrule  the  valuation  of  goods  by 
the  regular  appraisers;  and  the  manner  in  which  this  was  done  is  ex- 
plained in  the  testimony  of  Jeremiah  Lounsberry,  then  an  assistant  ap- 
praiser, and  the  principal  appraisers  and  their  assistants  in  the  woollens 
loft.  Mr.  Lounsberry  says  that  Mr.  Hoyt  had  been  tor  some  time  in  the 
habit  of  setting  aside  "  my  appraisements,  and  calling  in  merchants  to  make 
reappraisements.  In  all  cases  the  judgment  of  the  merchants  confirmed 
any  own,  until  a  shipment  consigned  to  George  Shaw  was  entered,  when 
Mr.  Hoyt  called  in,  successively,  four  or  five  different  appraisers,  until  he 
found  some  one  of  them  who  did  appiaise  them  high  enough  to  suit  his 
views.  He  made  the  seizure,  and  it  resulted  in  a  verdict  for  the  claimant." 
Mr.  Mead,  a  principal  appraiser,  testifies  to  the  same  practice  of  the  col- 
lector, in  calling  one  set  of  merchants  after  another,  until  he  could  find 
those  who  would  raise  the  goods  above  the  value  set  on  them  by  the  ap- 
praisers, and  then  seize  them,  as  having  been  fraudulently  entered. 

Nearly  all  the  cases  of  goods  libelled  under  this  system  of  reappraise- 
ment  were  acquitted  ;  and  Mr.  Hoyt  very  soon  found  that  some  other  "ex- 
pedient" better  suited  to  his  plan  of  operations,  was  indispensable  to  carry 
them  into  execution.  He  denounced  the  public  appraisers  in  his  corres- 
pondence with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ;  he  utterly  despaired  of  the 
honesty  of  courts  and  juries,  for  the  verdicts  were  almost  invariably 
against  him.  He  denounced  the  merchants,  whose  interest  he  professed 
to  protect  and  defend  by  the  seizure  of  foreign  merchandise,  because  they 
had  been  undersold  at  auction,  as  dishonest,  and  not  worthy  to  be  trusted 
.as  jurors  in  these  trials,  notwithstanding  his  previous  representations  that 
he  was  acting  under  the  pressure  of  their  clamors  against  the  very  class  of 
importers  whose  goods  were  on  trial.  Thus  driven  from  the  multiplied 
-expedients  to  which  he  had  resorted,  one  after  the  other,  for  the  purpose 
of  grasping  the  rich  commerce  of  the  country  in  foreign  woollens,  for  the 
advancement  of  his  individual  avarice,  but,  under  professions  of  a  desire 
to  protect  the  revenue  from  evasions,  he  resolved  to  make  one  desperate 
effort,  by  taking,  in  effect,  the  appraisement  of  goods  into  his  own  hands. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Gi 


This  he  did  by  discarding,  for  any  other  than  nominal  purposes,  the  prin- 
cipal appraisers  and  their  assistants,  and  placing  in  the  woollens  loft  arv 
inspector  of  the  customs  and  the  public  storekeeper,  ( William  Cairns  and 
George  A.  VVasson,)  with  the  understanding  that  they  were  to  supersede 
all  others  in  the  appraisement  of  woollens,  and  be  subject  at  all  times  to 
any  special  directions  which  he  might  think  proper  to  give. 

Under  this  new  arrangement,  he  plunged  at  once  into  all  the  excesses 
which  he  had  originally  contemplated,  of  seizures  and  compromises,  lim- 
ited only  by  his  own  will,  which  invariably  met  the  sanction  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury.    In  a  letter  addressed  at  that  time  by  Mr.  Hoyt 
to  Messrs.  VV.  &  S.  Lawrence  &  Stone,  of  Boston,  he  says  :  "  We  have 
been  beaten  by  the  courts  and  juries  in  all  our  efforts  to  carry  out  what 
we  thought  the  true  interpretation  of  the  tariff"    To  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  he  writes  with  the  same  despondency,  and  informs  him  that 
he  had  made  an  "engagement"  to  place  Mr.  Cairns  in  the  woollens  loft,  but 
that  he  objected  to  going  there  without  additional  pay.    These  two  infe- 
rior officers,  VVasson  and  Cairns,  would  not  be  entitled  to  the  slightest, 
notice  in  an  investigation  involving  so  many  important  considerations,  but 
for  the  illegal  and  corrupt  purposes  to  which  their  services  were  applied 
by  the  collector,  Hoyt,  and  his  confederates.   Their  acts  may,  in  all  cases, 
be  traced  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  and,  as  such,  constitute  a  fit  subject  for  scrutiny 
and  animadversion.    It  was  a  leading  object  with  Mr.  Hoyt  to  provide  an 
adequate  pecuniary  compensation,  in  some  form  or  other,  for  these  per- 
sons ;  it  was  necessary  to  stimulate  them  to  active  exertions  in  carrying 
out  his  views,  and  to  remove  from  them  the  temptation  of  higher  rewards 
in  another  quarter,    it  has  already  been  seen  that,  under  his  own  power 
to  increase  the  number  of  deputy  collectors,  he  contributed,  by  the  exer- 
cise of  that  power,  fifteen  hundred  dollars  per  annum  to  the  other  sources 
of  income  which  Wasson  received;  among  which,  as  hereinbefore  noticedy  ^ 
were  the  profits  on  the  immense  sums  arising  from  a  monopoly  of  cartage  and 
labor  at  the  public  stores,  amounting,  during  the  term  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  to  the 
enormous  sum  of  ninety-five  thousand  dollars,  audited  and  paid  to  him 
without  proof  or  voucher,  save  only  the  round  sums  which  he  demanded 
from  time  to  time.    His  extra  compensation  for  crusades  in  search  of  sus- 
pected goods,  at  Boston,  Philadelphia,  and  Baltimore,  and  for  attending, 
the  courts  at  these  places,  to  aid  in  the  condemnation  of  goods  by  his  own 
testimony,  must  have  been  very  great,  as  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  the 
bills  of  expenditures  for  these  purposes  rendered  at  the  custom-house, 
but  which  evidently  fall  far  short  of  the  amounts  paid  to  him,  as  the  gen- 
eral agent  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  for  making  seizures  and  attending  the  courts  as  a 
witness  to  procure  the  condemnation  of  the  goods  libelled  by  his  procure- 
ment.   It  is  in  proof  that,  although  he  professed  to  be  a  poor  man,  rely- 
ing solely  on  his  salary  as  inspector  of  the  customs,  scarcely  sufficient  to- 
give  bread  to  his  family,  he  suddenly,  and  without  any  apparent  increase 
of  his  means,  built  several  splendid  edifices  in  this  city,  and  set  up  a  car- 
riage, for  the  comfort  and  convenience  of  himself  and  family.    This  fact 
speaks  volumes  in  relation  to  the  use  made  of  this  man,  as  a  part  of  the 
corrupt  machinery  put  in  motion  at  this  custom-house  to  annihilate  foreign 
commence,  and  fill  the  pockets  of  the  collector  with  the  spoils,  while  the 
public  ear  was  amused  and  deceived  by  the  false  guise  assumed  and  pro- 
mulgated throughout  the  Union,  that  all  this  was  the  result  of  unbought 
patriotism  and  a  faithful  devotion  to  official  duty.    The  amount  of  com- 


Eep.  No.  669. 


pensation  received  by  William  Cairns  cannot  be  so  clearly  ascertained, 
but  the  nature  of  the  service  which  he  was  required  to  perform  under  the 
special  orders  of  the  collector  was  even  more  important  than  the  part  as- 
signed to  his  confederate,  George  A.  Wasson  ;  and,  in  the  absence  of  pos- 
itive testimony  touching  the  extra  compensation  paid  to  him  from  his  sal- 
ary and  other  sources,  it  may  be  fairly  inferred  from  the  collateral  testi- 
mony that  his  salary  as  inspector  was  greatly  augmented  by  extra  allow- 
ances and  contributions  from  parties  interested  in  his  services,  not  belong- 
ing to  the  custom-house. 

His  refusal  to  undertake  the  new  duties  which  he  was  called  on  to 
perform  by  the  collector,  without  an  increase  of  his  salary,  was  urged 
upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  as  a  reason  for  complying  with  his 
wishes  in  this  respect.  Mr.  Hoyt  dwelt  much,  in  his  official  correspond- 
ence with  the  Department,  on  the  distinguished  merits  of  Mr.  Cairns,  as 
also  of  Mr.  Wasson,  with  a  view,  doubtless,  of  drawing  as  large  a  sum  as 
practicable  from  the  public  Treasury,  to  compensate  these  individuals  in  a 
manner  corresponding  with  his  wishes  and  their  expectations,  and  thereby 
lessen  the  sum  which  might  be  required  by  way  of  private  contribution. 
This  appeal  to  the  Government  does  not  appear  to  have  been  answered 
in  the  case  of  Cairns;  but  the  collector,  on  the  6th,  and  11th,  of  July, 
1839,  informs  (see  Appendix  C)  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that  he 
"  had  ?7iade  an  engagement  to  put  Mr.  Cair?is  in  that  situation" — re- 
ferring to  the  woollens  loft. 

It  might  be  a  matter  of  some  curiosity,  if  not  of  public  interest,  to 
know  with  whom  the  collector  made  this  "engagement."  He  had  the 
power  to  order  Mr.  Cairns  to  the  performance  of  any  lawful  duty  in  the 
custom-house,  appertaining  to  his  office;  but  the  phraseology  employed 
by  the  collector  is  peculiar  and  striking.  The  term  ue?igageme/it"  means 
•contract,  and  of  course  refers  to  some  other  than  an  officer  of  the  customs, 
with  whom  it  was  not  competent  for  the  collector  to  contract  on  any 
matter  connected  with  the  discharge  of  his  official  duties.  This  engage- 
ment, therefore,  must  have  been  entered  into,  for  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Cairns, 
with  some  other  person  or  persons,  whose  names  are  not  disclosed.  It  is 
known  that  five  thousand  dollars  were  offered  to  Mr.  Bradley,  of  Boston, 
to  perform  the  same  services  for  which  Mr.  Cairns  was  placed  in  the 
woollens  loft;  that  this  offer  was  made  in  consequence  of  a  pledge  given 
by  the  collector,  to  appoint  any  one  an  assistant  appraiser  of  woollen 
goods  who  should  be  recommended  by  Mr.  Samuel  Lawrence,  of  Boston, 
it  is  known  also,  by  the  evidence  of  Jeremiah  Lounsberry,  that  he  was 
offered  by  George  R.  Ives,  professing  to  speak  for  Mr.  Lawrence,  a  com- 
pensation of  two  thousand  dollars  per  annum,  to  be  paid  down,  if  accept- 
ed, u  to  work"  for  the  manufacturers  of  woollens  ;  the  same  offer,  on  a 
smaller  scale,  was  made  to  Mr.  Joseph  R.  Bleecker,  then  assistant  cashier, 
by  Mr.  Ives  and  George  A.  Wasson,  at  the  same  time.  Mr.  Cairns  was 
not  selected  until  after  the  above-mentioned  offers  had  failed.  It  may, 
therefore,  be  reasonably  inferred  that  the  same  parties  who  so  earnestly 
desired  to  procure  the  services  of  Mr.  Bradley,  Mr.  Lounsberry,  and  Mr. 
Bleecker,  would  readily  contribute  to  so  valuable  an  acquisition  in  their 
interests  as  Mr.  Cairns,  backed  as  he  was  by  the  power  of  the  collector, 
to  carry  out  their  views  to  the  fullest  extent.  But  it  is  in  proof  that  Mr. 
Cairns,  on  being  asked  why  he  did  not  repair  to  the  woollens  loft  after  it 
was  known  that  the  situation  had  been  offered  to  him,  replied,  that  the 


*  Rep.  No.  669.  63 

arrangements  were  not  yet  completed,  but  that  he  expected  they  would 
be  in  a  few  days.  Mr.  Cairns  testifies,  in  his  own  behalf,  that  he  received 
no  other  salary  or  compensation,  as  inspector,  but  that  which  is  allowed 
by  law,  being  at  the  rate  of  three  dollars  per  day.  But  it  is  in  evidence, 
by  the  testimony  of  Richard  Smith,  an  examiner  of  goods  in  the  public 
store,  and  of  Edgar  Tripler,  an  assistant  to  the  appraisers,  and  others,  that, 
in  their  presence  and  hearing,  pending  the  late  presidential  election,  Mr. 
Cairns  stated  that  he  hoped  JVJr.  Van  Buren  would  be  elected,  for  in 
that  case  he  would  be  reappointed,  and  that  "  in  four  years  he  should  be 
able  to  retire,  and  would  not  then  wish  to  hold  office  under  any  adminis- 
tration." All  the  witnesses  concur  in  the  precise  words  used  by  Mr. 
Cairns  ;  but  he  nevertheless  says,  "  I  have  never  said  any  such  thing 
but  his  denial  cannot  avail  him  against  the  testimony  of  all  the  persons 
present  who  heard  it,  and  who  concur  in  the  precise  language  used  by 
Mr.  Cairns.  No  other  conclusion  can  be  drawn  from  these  facts,  than 
that  Mr.  Cairns,  for  his  services  in  the  woollens  loft,  received,  from  some 
source  which  is  not  distinctly  known,  a  reward  for  his  services  in  the  ap- 
praisement of  woollen  goods  at  least  equal  to  that  which  had  been  offered 
to  Mr.  Bradley  or  Mr.  Lounsberry.  Other  1acts  will  hereafter  be  noticed, 
calculated  to  leave  no  doubt  on  this  subject. 

The  spring  seizures  of  1839  proved  wholly  abortive,  the  trials  having 
almost  invariably  gone  against  the  collector,  and  in  favor  of  the  claimants 
of  the  goods.  In  consequence  of  these  adverse  trials,  Mr.  Hoyt  in- 
formed the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that  it  was  his  intention  to  postpone 
further  seizures  until  the  coming  in  of  the  importations  for  the  fall  season, 
which  were  expected  to  be  very  large.  In  the  mean  time,  Mr.  Cairns 
was  introduced  into  the  woollens'  loft,  and  the  regular  appraisers,  who 
had  refused  to  raise  the  standard  of  value,  in  opposition  to  the  repeated 
advice  and  recommendation  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  who  complained  to  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  and  requested  his  interposition  in  aid  of  his  efforts 
to  bring  the  appraisers  into  a  co-operation  with  his  views  in  this  respect, 
were  driven  from  the  woollens'  loft,  and  their  signatures  to  appraisements 
were  merely  required  as  a  matter  of  form,  and  the  entire  control  of  that 
loft  was  given  to  Mr.  Cairns,  whose  appraisements  on  all  occasions  were 
adopted  by  the  collector  in  lieu  of  those  made  by  the  regular  ap- 
praisers. 

It  is  proper  here  to  remark,  tHat,  by  the  act  of  May  7th,  1822,  it  is  pro- 
vided that  u  no  person  shall  be  an  inspector  of  the  customs  at  the  port  of 
New  York  who  at  the  same  time  holds  any  other  office  in  the  collection 
of  the  customs  ;"  and  by  the  act  of  28th  May,  1830,  section  4,  it  is  de- 
clared that  all  persons,  except  the  assistant  appraisers,  who  are  appoint- 
ed by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  employed  in  the  appraisers'  office, 
shall  be  appointed  by  the  principal  appraisers,  and  their  number  limited 
and  fixed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  In  the  face  of  these  legal  en- 
actments, Mr.  Hoyt  assumed  to  himself  the  entire  control  of  the  apprais- 
ers' department,  and,  in  direct  violation  of  the  act  of  1822,  thrust  an  in- 
spector of  the  customs  into  the  woollens  loft,  and  in  effect  abrogated  the  pow- 
ers of  the  principal  appraisers,  and,  by  a  concerted  action  between  this  in- 
spector and  himself,  sanctioned  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  assumed 
the  entire  control  of  that  department,  created  for  the  purpose  of  an  impar- 
tial valuation  of  goods  imported  into  the  United  States,  free  from  all  bias, 
and  independent  of  all  dictation  on  the  part  of  the  collector,  whose  par- 


64  Rep.  No.  669.  | 

ticipation  in  the  proceeds  of  condemned  goods  disqualifies  him  to  judge  im- 
partially in  the  valuation  of  importations,  a  portion  of  which  enures  to  his 
benefit,  in  case  the  invoice  price  is  raised,  as  the  basis  of  a  subsequent  sei- 
zure. 

About  this  period,  Mr.  Hoyt  informs  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that 
he  had  rendered  essential  services  to  the  Government  by  spending  one- 
half  his  time  at  the  public  store,  in  the  appraisers'  department ;  thus  recog- 
nising, in  its  fullest  extent,  the  power  exercised  by  him  over  that  depart- 
ment, not  only  through  the  agency  of  William  Cairns,  but  in  his  own  pro- 
per person. 

The  scenes  which  followed  this  new  order  of  things  at  the  custom-house 
were  of  a  character  the  most  disgraceful  and  corrupt,  and  their  effect  on  the 
foreign  commerce  and  revenues  of  the  country  cannot  be  well  calculated. 

The  first  step  was  to  raise  the  standard  of  value  of  foreign  woollens,  in 
accordance  with  the  wishes  of  Mr.  Lawrence,  as  he  testified  in  his  depo- 
sition, and  which  the  principal  appraisers  had  been  repeatedly  urged  to  do 
by  Mr.  Hoyt,  without  success.  Mr.  Cairns,  a  mere  inspector  of  the  cus- 
toms, in  answer  to  a  question  put  to  him  on  the  subject,  states  :  "  /  raised 
the  standard  of  prices  myself  from  a  conviction  that  it  was  too  low;  and 
this  was  concurred  in  by  Mr.  Lounsberry." 

Mr.  Hoyt,  after  many  ineffectual  efforts  to  induce  the  principal  apprais- 
ers to  comply  with  his  views  on  this  point,  wrote  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  under  date  of  the  5th  day  of  August,  1839,  that  "  he  had  long 
been  of  opinion  that  the  standard  of  value  in  the  appraisers'  office,  for 
woollens  especially,  was  too  low."  And,  to  remedy  this  evil,  he  came  to 
the  conclusion  to  place  Mr.  Cairns  permanently  in  the  woollens  loft,  as  a 
person  perfectly  competent,  and  on  whose  judgment  he  could  rely.  This 
was  immediately  followed  by  raising  the  standard  of  value,  according  to  a 
tabular  statement  made  out  and  transmitted  to  the  Treasury  Department. 
It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Cairns,  so  far  from  raising  the  standard 
of  value  himself,  as  he  states  in  his  testimony,  was  the  mere  instrument 
to  carry  into  effect  the  previous  opinions  and  intentions  of  the  collector,  in 
which  all  his  experiments  had  before  been  unavailing. 

Mr.  Lounsberry,  who  is  referred  to  by  Cairns  as  concurring  in  the  new 
standard  of  value  with  him,  utterly  denied  all  participation  in  it,  and  the 
sanction  of  his  signature  was  merely  required  as  a  matter  of  form,  and  so 
given,  under  the  special  directions  of  the  collector.  But  whether  Mr. 
Cairns  has  stated  truly  that  he  raised  the  standard  of  prices  himself,  or  not, 
it  was  equally  done  in  violation  of  law,  by  the  usurpation  of  that  power  by 
the  collector  which  properly  belonged  to  the  principal  appraisers;  and  it  is 
not  a  little  remarkable  that,  under  any  circumstances,  an  officer  of  the  cus- 
toms of  the  lowest  grade  should  be  chosen  by  the  collector  to  perform  the 
highest  duty  belonging  to  the  appraisers'  department,  and  on  the  judicious 
exercise  of  which  the  revenue  accruing  on  foreign  importations  so  materi- 
ally depended. 

u  I  raised  the  standard  of  value  myself"  is  pretty  strong  language  to  be 
used  by  an  inspector  of  the  customs,  in  the  face  of  the  principal  appraisers, 
who  were  commissioned  by  the  President,  under  the  authority  of  law,  to 
put  a  fair  estimate  on  the  value  of  goods,  according  to  their  own  judgment, 
and  who  had  for  more  than  a  year  firmly  resisted  the  importunities  of  the 
collector  on  the  same  subject.  This,  however,  was  only  the  commence- 
ment of  a  system,  by  which  the  sole  power  of  raising  goods  was  confided 


Rep.  No.  GC9. 


65 


to,  and  exercised  to  its  fullest  extent,  by  Mr.  Cairns,  to  the  entire  exclu- 
sion of  the  appraisers  and  their  assistants,  whose  signatures  to  the  appraise- 
ments thus  made  were  given  according  to  the  forms  oflaw,  to  render  them 
admissible  as  evidence  in  the  courts  ot  justice,  which  they  dare  not  refuse, 
without  incurring  the  hazard  of  immediate  removal  from  office.  Jn  this 
degraded  situation  they  remained,  with  the  full  knowledge  and  approbation 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  until  the  result  of  the  presidential  elec- 
tion in  1S40  was  known  ;  after  which,  this  class  of  custom-house  officers  as- 
sumed more  independence,  and,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  the  indiscrim- 
inate seizure  of  goods  ceased. 

The  evidence  taken  by  the  commissioners  concerning  this  person,  Wil- 
liam Cairns,  the  relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the  collector,  the 
authority  assumed  by  him  in  the  woollens  loft,  and  of  his  general 
course  of  conduct,  is  too  diffuse  and  voluminous  to  find  a  place  in 
a  condensed  review  of  the  investigation  authorized  into  the  affairs  of 
the  New  York  custom-house.  But  the  following  analysis  will  be  sufficient 
to  draw  the  attention  of  the  Government  to  the  material  facts  which  are 
disclosed  in  the  depositions  of  the  following  witnesses,  some  of  them  in 
office  at  this  time,  and  all  of  them  having  filled  office  at  the  date  of  the 
transactions  to  which  they  refer  : 
1.  The  deposition  of  A.  B.  Mead. 


2. 

Do. 

Jeremiah  Lounsherry 

3. 

Do, 

Edgar  Trippler. 

4. 

Do. 

Jeromus  Johnson. 

5. 

Do. 

A.  B.  Vanderpool. 

6. 

Do. 

Richard  Smith. 

7. 

Do. 

Samuel  Lupton. 

8. 

Do. 

Richard  H.  Caniff. 

9. 

Do. 

Walter  Fuller. 

To  which  may  be  added,  the  testimony  of  many  others  on  various  points 
touching  the  conduct  of  William  Cairns,  both  in  and  out  of  the  custom- 
house. Some  of  these  may  be  occasionally  referred  to  hereafter.  From 
the  evidence  of  these  witnesses  it  will  appear — 

First.  That  Mr.  Cairns  was  placed  in  the  wooilensloft  by  the  special  or- 
der of  the  collector,  Hoy t, professedly  to  aid  the  appraisers  in  the  exam- 
ination of  goods,  but  practically  to  superintend  their  appraisements,  to 
overrule  them  when  made,  and  to  affix  his  own  standard  of  value,  which 
was  invariably  accepted  and  acted  on  by  the  collector. — (See  Journal, 
first  commission.) 

Second.  That  the  power  of  the  appraisers  and  their  assistants  in  the 
woollens  loft  was  entirely  superseded  through  the  agency  of  this  inspect- 
or of  the  customs,  for  all  effective  purposes,  and  that  there  was  a  direct 
and  frequent  communication  between  him  and  the  collector,  both  in  the 
appraiser's  department  and  at  the  custom-house;  that  he  was  the  only 
person  in  that  department  who  was  at  any  time  consulted  by  the  collector ; 
and  that  their  interviews,  which  took  place  several  times  on  each  day, 
were  strictly  confidential. 

Third.  It  is  in  evidence  that  Mr.  Cairns  stated  to  the  assistant  apprais- 
ers in  the  woollens  loft,  that  he  was  placed  there  to  watch  the  Yorkshire- 
men  ;  and  that  he  had  been  assured,  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  that  he  would  in  no  case 
suffer  his  appraisements  to  be  disturbed.  . 

Fourth.  That  an  indiscriminate  seizure  of  foreign  woollens  having 


66  Rep.  No.  669. 


been  determined  on  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  standard  of  fifteen  per  cent,  above 
the  invoice  price  was  fixed  as  the  minimum  to  which  such  goods  must 
be  raised,  to  subject  them  to  seizure.  This  was  done,  in  the  first  in- 
stance, by  Mr.  Cairns;  but,  if  any  disagreement  among  the  appraisers 
took  place,  Mr.  Cairns  was  furnished  with  blank  appointments  of  merchant 
appraisers  to  be  called  in  to  sustain  him,  which  blanks  he  filled  with  the 
names  of  particular  merchants,  which  had  been  given  to  him  by  the  col- 
lector, and  these  re-appraisements  were  frequently  made  in  a  fraudulent 
manner,  while  the  principal  appraisers  were  absent,  and  on  no  occasion 
does  it  appear  that  they  were  notified  that  a  re-appraisement  of  goods 
would  take  place,  so  that  they  might  be  present  and  participate  in  it,  ac- 
cording to  law.  In  some  cases  four  or  five  successive  sets  of  merchants 
were  called  in  in  this  manner,  until  some  one  could  be  found  who  would 
raise  the  goods  sufficiently  high  to  subject  them  to  seizure,  which  appraise- 
ment, when  so  obtained,  was  adopted  by  the  collector,  and  the  goods  libelled. 

Fifth.  Mr.  Cairns,  while  under  examination  before  the  commissioners, 
was  asked  44  whether  the  principal  appraisers  were  required  to  revise  and 
examine  his  appraisements,  or  in  any  manner  to  test  their  accuracy,  before 
they  reported  the  same  to  the  collector;  or  was  not  their  signature  to 
your  appraisements  a  mere  matter  of  form,  without  a  critical  examination 
of  the  details  of  your  appraisements  ? /  To  which  he  replied  :  44  Their  ap- 
proval was  so  much  a  matter  of  form,  that  they  signed  the  appraisements 
without  critical  examination,  except  in  such  few  instances  as  when  they 
were  especially  called  upon  so  to  do." 

Sixth.  That  William  Cairns,  George  A.  Wasson,  and  George  R.  Ives,  of 
the  firm  of  Labron  &  Ives,  were  the  standing  witnesses  of  Mr.  Hoyt  in  all 
cases  of  seizures,  both  in  and  out  of  New  York. 

In  the  correspondence  of  Mr.  Hoyt  with  Mr.  Butler,  the  district  at- 
torney, he  says :  44  You  will  notice  that  the  merchants  always  appraise 
higher  than  the  public  appraisers,  and  therefore,  when  you  show  the  entry  r 
and  call  the  merchants  who  have  appraised,  the  onus  is  then  on  the  other 
side.  /  would  avoid  calling  our  own  appraisers  when  you  can  avoid  it." 
And  further  he  says :  44 1  do  not  desire  to  bring  our  own  appraisers-  be- 
fore the  public  in  the  attitude  they  would  stand,  in  differing  so  widely 
with  the  merchants," 

And  in  another  letter  from  the  collector  to  the  district  attorney,  under 
date  of  7th  September,  1840,  he  uses  the  following  language:  44 1  return 
you  the  calendar  for  September  term,  which  you  sent  me  this  morning.  I 
have  a  great  many  suggestions  to  make,  but  which  must  be  done  verbally  ; 
but  I  would  now  remark,  that  Mr.  Cairns  is  obliged  to  go  to  Baltimore  on 
Saturday  next,  and  will  be  absent  several  days.  Some  of  the  papers 
which  we  shall  want  on  the  trial  of  Clifton  are  in  Baltimore,  and  will  be 
wanted  there,  so  that  you  will  observe  that  this  cause,  as  well  as  those  in 
which  Mr.  Cairns  is  a  witness,  should  be  arranged  on  the  calendar  so  as 
to  meet  these  contingencies." 

Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  Mr.  Cairns,  and  the  favored  merchants  of  his 
selection)  are  not  only  placed  by  the  collector  above  the  appraisers  ap- 
pointed by  the  President,  in  raising  the  invoice  price  of  goods,  and  thereby 
causing  their  seizure,  but  the  district  attorney,  Mr.  Butler,  is  informed  by 
the  collector  that  they  ought  to  be  made  the  exclusive  witnesses  of  the 
Government  on  these  trials,  out  of  pure  compassion  to  the  appraisers, 
whose  character  Mr.  Hoyt  earnestly  desires  to  protect  from  public  scru- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


67 


tiny,  and  more  especially  to  save  them  from  an  exposure  of  the  great  dis- 
crepancy between  their  valuation  of  goods  and  that  of  the  merchants  and 
of  Mr.  Cairns,  whose  evidence  it  seems  is  wanted  in  Baltimore,  in  Phila- 
delphia, and  in  New  York,  almost  simultaneously;  to  attain  which,  it  is 
deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to  change  the  calendar  of  the  court,  to  en- 
able this  important  personage  to  fulfil  all  the  high  duties  assigned  him  by 
the  collector  in  other  places,  and  return  to  New  York  before  any  action  is 
had  in  a  case  where  his  name  has  been  set  down  as  a  witness. 

Seventh.  That  all  the  principal  appraisers  and  their  assistants,  and  la- 
borers at  the  public  store,  so  far  as  they  have  been  examined,  concur  in 
the  statements,  that  after  Mr.  Cairns  was  appointed  by  the  collector  to 
appraise  goods  in  the  woollens  loft,  the  goods  of  certain  men  were 
advanced  on  their  invoice  prices  without  discrimination  ;  and  that  certain 
merchants,  who  were  favorites  at  the  custom-house,  had  their  goods  uni- 
formly passed  at  the  invoice  prices.  Of  this  latter  class  was  George  R. 
Ives,  one  of  the  standing  witnesses  of  Mr.  Hoyt  in  seizure  cases,  who,  if 
his  own  account,  given  under  oath,  is  to  be  taken  as  correct,  had  imported 
woollen  goods  into  the  port  of  New  York  to  the  amount  of  several  hun- 
dred thousand  pounds  sterling. 

Mr.  Mead,  one  of  the  principal  appraisers,  testifies  that  the  power  of 
controlling  this  branch  of  business  was  invested  solely  in  Mr.  Cairns,  al- 
though he  was  not  an  appraiser  of  any  grade,  but  an  inspector  of  the  cus- 
toms, who  received  his  appointment  from  Mr.  Hoyt,  by  whom  this  extraor- 
dinary control  was  given  him. 

Mr.  Lounsberry,  an  assistant  appraiser,  who  was  performing  duty  under 
the  supervision  of  Mr.  Cairns,  states,  in  his  deposition,  that  "  Mr.  Cairns 
had  always  shown  a  strong  partiality  for  the  house  of  Labron  &  Ives. 
He  would  pass  their  goods  as  fairly  charged,  when  they  were  invoiced 
from  ten  to  fifteen  per  cent,  below  their  value  ;  and  if  the  same  kind  of 
goods  had  been  imported  by  some  other  houses,  he  was  ready  to  put  them 
up  ten  or  fifteen  per  cent.,  making  thereby  a  difference  of  thirty  per  cent." 
This  operated  as  a  bounty  to  these  importers,  which,  if  their  importations 
amounted  to  the  sum  at  which  they  are  estimated  by  Mr.  Ives,  must  have 
been  a  loss  to  the  Government  of  nearly  a  half  million  of  dollars. 

It  appears,  also,  that  gross  partiality  was  practised  by  Mr.  Cairns,  in  the 
exercise  of  his  unlimited  authority,  by  ordering  goods  to  be  passed  as  free 
which  were  subject  to  a  duty  of  twenty- five  per  cent.,  by  ordering  goods 
for  seizure  without  examination,  and  by  passing  goods  at  the  invoice  price, 
and  afterwards,  finding  they  belonged  to  a  foreign  importer,  raising  them, 
twenty- five  per  cent.,  so  as  to  subject  them  to  seizure.  On  one  occasion 
he  raised  the  invoice  price  of  a  lot  of  woollens  from  twenty  to  twenty-five 
per  cent.,  not  knowing  to  whom  they  belonged  ;  immediately  afterwards, 
Mr.  Ives  made  his  appearance  in  the  loft,  held  some  private  conversation 
with  Mr.  Cairns,  when  they  retired  from  the  room  a  short  time,  and  on 
their  return  Mr.  Cairns  ordered  the  goods  to  be  passed  according  to  in- 
voice, saying,  u  It  is  all  right."  Mr.  Ives,  on  leaving  the  room,  spoke  of 
some  good  old  English  cheese  and  tea  which  he  had  at  his  store,  and  Mr. 
Cairns  said  to  him,  "  Don't  forget  to  send  me  up  that  caddy  of  tea." 

It  also  appears  that  Mr.  Hoyt,  after  a  quantity  of  woollens,  imported  by 
Labron  &  Ives,  had  been  measured  and  reported  to  him  as  invoiced  short 
of  the  actual  measure  13,900  yards,  ordered  the  goods  to  be  delivered  to 
the  importers,  although  it  was  a  clear  case  of  intentional  fraud,  and  would 


68 


Rep.  No.  669. 


have  been  sufficient  to  have  condemned  the  goods.  In  other  instances, 
when  the  appraisers  had  raised  the  invoice  price  of  goods  imported  by 
the  same  house  twenty  per  cent,  on  the  invoice,  they  were  ordered  to  be 
delivered  as  invoiced  ;  and  other  goods  of  the  same  class,  by  the  same 
vessel,  were  ordered  to  be  delivered  without  examination,  and  without 
being  sent  to  the  public  store,  although  the  law  makes  it  the  imperative 
duty  of  the  collector  to  order  all  goods  imported  from  foreign  countries  to 
be  sent  to  the  public  store  for  appraisement,  if  the  first  package  is  found 
to  be  invoiced  too  low. 

This  enumeration  is  not  extended  to  all  the  cases  of  partiality  shown  to 
this  house,  after  Mr.  Cairns  had  control  of  the  appraiser's  department. 
Other  cases  equally  flagrant  may  be  found  in  the  testimony,  but  enough 
have  been  noted  to  establish  privileges  and  immunities  accorded  to  them, 
by  the  collector,  which  were  invariably  denied  to  foreign  importers,  in 
the  payment  of  duties,  it  will  be  seen,  by  the  correspondence  of  Mr.  Hoyt 
with  the  Treasury  Department,  in  a  letter  dated  August  29, 1839,  ( see  Ap- 
pendix E,)  that  it  was  very  difficult  for  the  merchants  to  raise  the  money  to 
pay  the  duties  on  woollens.    "In  this  respect  ( he  says )  I  help  along  all  that 
I  can,  on  my  own  responsibility.  I  have  been,  as  it  were,  compelled  to  take 
the  checks  of  several  houses,  payable  a  few  days  ahead,  for  cash  duties.  I 
do  not  do  this  except  for  houses  peradventure  beyond  all  question  abun- 
dantly good,  and  even  such  houses  are  exceedingly  pressed  for  money  to 
carry  on  their  business."    This  discrimination  between  importing  mer- 
chants, in  violation  of  law,  it  appears  by  the  evidence  of  the  cashier,  T. 
J.  Waters,  included  only  two  houses,  (Alley,  Stanton,  &  Co.,  and  Labron 
&  Ives,)  which  latter  house,  so  far  from  being  "  peradventure  beyond  all 
question  abundantly  good,"  very  shortly  after  these  indulgences  were 
"ranted  by  the  collector,  committed  an  act  of  bankruptcy  in  England,  and 
have  ceased  to  do  business  in  their  own  names  in  this  country.  The 
checks  of  Labron  &  Ives  amounted  sometimes  to  twenty  thousand  dollars, 
and  were  given  without  date,  and  so  remained  for  fifteen  or  twenty  days, 
until  it  was  convenient  to  have  them  presented  at  the  bank.    This  fact  is 
referred  to  as  additional  evidence  of  the  general  partiality  of  the  collect- 
or and  Mr.  Cairns  towards  this  house,  which  may,  in  some  measure,  ac- 
count for  the  relations  subsisting  between  George  K.  Ives,  one  of  the 
partners,  and  Mr.  Hoyt,  whose  standing  witness  he  was  in  all  cases  of 
goods  libelled  for  an  alleged  violation  of  the  revenue  laws.    Other  in- 
stances of  partiality,  in  passing  goods  at  the  custom-house,  may  be  seen  in 
the  testimony  of  the  witnesses  referred  to,  but  the  details  are  not  deemed 
sufficiently  important  to  be  given  in  this  report. 

Eighth.  In  a  report  made  by  the  appraisers  to  the  commissioners,  it  ap- 
pears that,  from  1838,  after  Mr.  Hoyt  came  into  office,  to  August,  1841, 
two  hundred  and  fifty-seven  invoices  of  woollen  goods  were  raised  at  the 
appraiser's  department;  and  that  of  these  the  whole  number,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  two  last,  were  examined  and  appraised  by  William  Cairns, 
assisted  by  Lounsbeny,  whose  opinions,  as  he  has  testified,  were  never 
regarded  by  the  collector  when  they  conflicted  with  the  appraisement  of 
William  Cairns.  The  new  standard  of  value  which  Mr.  Cairns  says  he 
affixed  himself  on  these  invoices  of  woollens,  but  which,  if  not  ordered 
by  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  such  is  undoubtedly  the  fact,  was  approved  by  him,  had 
the  effect  of  increasing  the  tariff  on  woollens  more  than  twenty  per  cent., 
without  the  sanction  of  law,  but  by  the  arbitrary  order  ef  the  collector  to 


Rep.  No.  669. 


69 


a  subordinate  selected  for  the  purpose.  It  is  clear,  that  if  this  power,  ex- 
ercised by  the  collector  in  compliance  with  the  wishes  of  the  domestic 
manufacturers,  as  they  were  made  known  through  Mr.  Lawrence,  is  ap- 
proved by  the  Government,  and  becomes  a  precedent  for  the  action  of 
future  collectors  on  the  same  subject,  there  is  no  need  of  legislation  to 
impose  protecting!;  duties,  since  it  may  be  done  through  the  appraiser's  de- 
partment, from  day  to  day,  or  from  one  period  to  another,  as  it  may  seem 
expedient  to  whomsoever  may,  for  the  time  being,  fill  the  office  of  collect- 
or at  this  great  emporium  of  commerce. 

Ninth.  The  origin  and  progress  of  these  interpolations  on  law,  and  the 
antecedent  practice  of  the  custom-house,  may  be  traced  to  the  causes 
which  brought  them  into  existence,  by  recurring  to  the  testimony  touch- 
ing the  character  for  truth  and  veracity  of  the  individuals  chosen  by  Mr. 
Hoyt  to  carry  into  effect  his  general  system  of  seizures,  and  on  whose  ev- 
idence he  rolied  to  sustain  them,  as  well  in  the  incipient  proceedings  as  in 
the  final  trial  before  the  court  and  jury.  Cairns,  who  stands  at  the  head  of 
the  triumvirate,  when  under  examination  before  the  commissioners,  in  an- 
swer to  a  question  whether  he  had  written  a  letter  to  Edward  Curtis,  collec- 
tor, respecting  the  arrest  of  certain  Yorkshire  importers,  made  the  following 
answer:  "  I have  not  caused  any  Yorkshiremen  to  be  arrested.  I  never 
wrote  a  letter  to  Mr.  Curtis  on  this  subject."  The  original  letter,  in  the 
handwriting  of  Mr.  Cairns,  being  then  before  the  board,  one  of  the  mem- 
bers renewed  the  question,  in  substance,  with  a  quotation  from  the  letter 
in  the  following  words :  u  Have  you  ever,  in  writing  or  orally,  said  to  any 
person,  that  any  Yorkshiremen  have  been  arrested  mainly  through  your 
instrumentality,  for  the  immense  frauds  they  had  for  years  practised  on 
the  revenue  ?"  To  this  renewed  question  the  same  negative  answer  was 
given.  The  original  letter  is  at  this  time  among  the  papers  of  the  com- 
mission, reported  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  It  bears  date  May  5, 
1841,  so  short  a  time  before  the  witness  gave  his  testimony,  that  it  is  next 
to  impossible  that  he  should  have  forgotten  it,  and  contains  these  words  : 
"  I  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to  an  article  of  yestereay,  4th  instant, 
in  the  Express  newspaper,  signed  '  a  custom-house  officer,'  and  number- 
ed four.  It  was  quite  plain  to  my  mind  that  that,  as  well  as  the  previous 
communications  under  the  same  signature,  were  written  by  some  of  the 
Yorkshiremen  who  have  been  arrested  mainly  through  my  instrumentality." 

This  special  case  is  referred  to,  because  the  witness  has,  in  this  instance, 
denied,  under  oath,  his  own  act  in  writing,  done  but  a  few  weeks  before, 
relating  to  the  precise  subject  on  which  he  was  giving  testimony. 

There  are  other  particular  parts  of  the  deposition  of  Cairns,  the  false- 
hood of  which  is  positively  proven  by  four  or  five  witnesses,  who  knew 
the  facts  sworn  to  by  Cairns  to  be  false,  of  their  own  knowledge.  The 
whole  of  his  deposition,  or  nearly  the  whole  of  it,  is  contradicted,  in  ex- 
press terms,  by  every  officer  of  the  customs  with  whom  he  acted.  Of  all 
this  he  was  fully  informed,  and,  by  an  order  of  the  board,  he  was  furnish- 
ed with  a  copy  of  the  testimony  implicating  his  moral  and  official  charac- 
ter, with  a  request  that  he  would  examine  it,  and  introduce  rebutting  tes- 
timony if  in  his  power.  These  and  many  other  indulgences  were  extended 
to  him,  which  had  been  denied  to  other  witnesses,  under  special  influ- 
ences, of  which  it  is  not  proper  to  speak  in  this  place.  The  result  was, 
that,  after  having  possession  ot  these  copies  for  several  days,  he  referred 
the  commissioners  to  but  one  witness,  George  Innes,  an  examiner  of  goods. 


« 


70 


Rep.  No.  669. 


to  rebut  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Mead,  a  principal  appraiser,  charging  him 
with  having  ordered  goods  to  be  passed  as  free  without  examination, 
which  were  found  to  be  dutiable  by  Mr.  Innes.  This  witness  was  called 
at  his  request,  and  confirmed,  almost  word  for  word,  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Mead.  The  curtain  here  dropped  on  Mr.  Cairns;  no  further  wit- 
nesses were  called  to  testify  concerning  him  ;  the  evidence  was  transmitted 
to  the  collector,  Mr.  Curtis,  who  addressed  a  short  notice  to  Mr.  Cairns, 
then  holding  an  office  in  the  custom-house,  under  date  of  August  10,  1841, 
being  three  months  after  the  commissioners  commenced  their  investiga- 
tions, in  the  following  words : 

"  Collector's  Office, 

.New  York,  August  10,  1841. 

"  Sir  :  It  has  become  my  painful  duty  to  acquaint  you  that  your  ser- 
vices, as  an  inspector  of  the  customs,  are  no  longer  required  by  the  Gov- 
ernment. 

"  Yours,  &c. 

"EDWARD  CURTIS. 

"  Mr.  William  Cairns." 

Why  this  duty  was  so  "painful"  to  Mr.  Curtis,  after  being  so  long 
delayed,  may  perhaps  be  accounted  for  by  a  recurrence  to  the  depositions 
of  Hyatt  Smith,  Thatcher  Tucker,  and  others,  which  will  be  more  par- 
ticularly noticed  hereafter. 

George  A.  Wasson,  another  favorite  subordinate  officer  of  the  customs 
wTho  was  the  pioneer  of  the  collector  in  going  from  one  port  to 
another,  and  making  seizures  of  every  package  of  woollens  which  he 
might  suspect  as  having  been  imported  by  the  Yotkshiremen,  whose  evi- 
dence was  in  all  cases  required  by  Mr.  Hoyt  and  his  counsel,  has  already 
been  noticed  in  connexion  with  frauds  on  the  Government,  in  the  enor- 
mous amounts  paid  to  him  for  cartage  and  labor,  without  vouchers  ;  in  the 
employment  of  laborers  hired  at  the  public  expense,  for  his  own  private 
purposes,  while  their  services  were  required  at  the  public  store  ;  and  for 
abstracting  goods  from  the  public  store,  and  appropriating  them  to  his  own 
use;  and  a  great  variety  of  other  malpractices,  which  will  abundantly  ap- 
pear in  the  testimony  reported  by  the  commissioners. 

The  evidence  implicating  the  moral  and  official  conduct  of  this  man 
having  been  fully  made  known  to  the  collector,  he  also  was  reluctantly 
removed  by  Mr.  Curtis,  on  the  4th  day  of  June,  1841,  but  not  until  he 
had  paid  to  him  a  bill,  in  all  respects  similar  to  those  paid  previously  by 
Mr.  Hoyt,  for  cartage  and  labor  during  the  two  preceding  months,  amount- 
ing to  the  sum  of  $£4,673  96,  besides  incidental  expenses  at  the  public 
store,  for  about  the  same  period,  of  ^2 i  6  21.  These  payments  were  made 
with  a  full  knowledge  of  the  previous  frauds  committed  in  the  expenditures 
at  the  public  store,  which  were  made  known  to  the  collector  by  the  commis- 
sioners, and  constituted  one  ground  ol  his  removal  from  office ;  and  to  satisfy 
the  commissioners  that  a  change  in  this  respect  had  taken  place  at  the  custom- 
house, and  that  these  expenditures  were  more  strictly  investigated  and  re- 
duced in  amount,  Mr.  Curtis  addressed  a  letter  to  them,  dated  on  the  2d  day 
of  June,  two  days  before  Wasson  was  removed,  in  which  he  says:  "  I  have 
suspended  the  usual  payment  of  money  for  cartage  and  labor  to  Wasson, 


Rep.  No.  669. 


71 


and  pay  over  the  money  in  smaller  sums  to  his  clerk ;"  and  yet,  in  direct 
opposition  to  this  arrangement,  which  he  professed  to  have  made  for 
greater  security  and  economy  in  this  branch  of  expenditure,  Mr.  Curtis, 
two  days  thereafter,  paid  to  Mr.  Wasson  an  amount  nearly  equal  to  five 
thousand  dollars,  in  one  payment,  and,  under  the  pressure  of  irresistible 
proofs  of  his  former  corruptions,  he  dismissed  him  from  the  public  service, 
first  filling  his  pockets  with  a  sum  corresponding  with,  if  it  did  not  surpass, 
the  advances  made  to  him,  under  the  same  head  of  expenditure,  at  any 
time  during  the  term  of  Mr.  Hoyt.  This  public  storekeeper,  to  whom  so 
many  favors  were  granted  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  whose  extravagant  charges, 
paid  at  the  custom-house,  have  before  been  the  subject  of  comment,  tes- 
tifies, in  his  deposition,  that  the  system  of  charges  was  continued  under 
Mr.  Curtis,  without  alteration  in  any  respect  whatever;  and  it  would 
seem  that  the  enormous  payment  made  to  him  on  the  4th  June,  at  the 
time  of  his  removal,  in  direct  violation  of  the  written  pledge  of  Mr.  Curtis 
to  the  commissioners,  amounts  to  conclusive  proof  of  the  fact  stated  by 
Wasson,  that  the  collector  had  continued  to  make  these  payments,  knowing 
all  that  had  been  done  by  Mr.  Hoyt  on  the  same  subject. 

The  other  witness  en  whom  Mr.  Hoyt  usually  called  to  give  evidence 
in  seizure  cases  is  George  R.  Ives,  to  whom  the  facilities  at  the  custom- 
house, before  noticed,  were  granted  by  the  collector,  ^nd  to  whose  evi- 
dence, in  the  case  of  Samuel  R.  Wood,  Mr.  Hoyt  so  frequently  refers,  to 
justify  his  suspicions  of  the  Yorkshiremen,  on  the  ground  that  this  witness 
swears  to  certain  expressions  of  the  young  man  Wood,  "that  he  had  done 
no  more  than  other  Yorkshiremen  had  done,"  which  of  itself  proves  noth- 
ing, and  was  not  admissible  evidence  in  a  court  of  justice.  But  it  seems 
to  have  been  enough  to  furnish  materiel  for  several  official  letters  from 
Mr.  Hoyt  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  This  case  of  Samuel  R. 
Wood,  which  came  to  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Hoyt  through  the  disclosures 
made  to  him  by  Ives  of  a  confidential  correspondence  between  the  defend- 
ant and  his  father,  which  correspondence  came  into  the  possession  of  Ives 
as  the  attorney  in  fact  of  the  assignees  of  the  elder  Wood,  in  England, 
was  used  by  Ives  to  protect  himself  against  the  payment  of  twelve  thou- 
sand dollars  which  he  held,  over  and  above  the  sums  required  for  the 
liquidation  of  the  indebtedness  of  the  elder  Wood  in  England.  Under 
the  specious  pretext  of  being  called  on  by  Mr.  Hoyt  for  the  books  of  cor- 
respondence, he  delivered  them  up,  and  testified  to  them  in  court,  by 
means  of  which  he  now  holds  twelve  thousand  dollars,  for  which  sum  (see 
his  evidence  above)  a  verdict  was  obtained  against  Samuel  R.  Wood,  for 
an  alleged  violation  of  the  revenue  laws.  Whether  Mr.  Hoyt  enjoys  any 
part  of  this  sum,  so  withheld  from  the  Treasury,  is  a  matter  of  conjecture; 
but  the  trial  is  triumphantly  refer  red  to  by  him,  to  justify  all  the  extrava- 
gant seizures  which  he  has  made  of  goods  regularly  imported,  examined, 
appraised,  passed,  and  the  duties  paid  to  him,  at  the  New  York  custom- 
house, on  the  appraised  value. 

It  is  not  intended  to  justify  Wood,  the  defendant  in  the  above  case,  in 
his  transactions  at  the  custom-house,  or  to  intimate  an  opinion  that  his 
correspondence  was  not  highly  reprehensible  ;  but  the  manner  in  which 
the  disclosures  were  made  by  Ives,  and  his  subsequent  testimony  in  court, 
bear  strong  marks  of  collusion  between  him  and  the  collector,  founded 
on  the  mutual  hope  of  pecuniary  gain.  Whether  this  witness,  George  R. 
Ives,  is  worthy  of  belief  in  a  case  involving  his  individual  interests,  is  a 


72 


Rep.  No.  669. 


point  on  which  it  may  not  be  proper  to  offer  any  decided  opinion.  But 
the  following  analysis  of  the  testimony  given  by  him  before  the  commis- 
sioners may  furnish  the  ground  on  which  to  form  a  judgment  of  his  credi- 
bility. It  will  be  seen,  in  the  testimony  of  John  Taylor,  jr.,  given  under 
the  cross-examination  of  Ives,  that,  in  a  conversation  between  him  and  the 
witness,  he  stated  as  follows  :  "  Mr.  Ives  told  me,  in  his  office,  that  some 
person  (Mr.  Lawrence,  I  believe)  did  offer  him  two  thousand  dollars  a 
year  to  act  as  a  spy  or  agent  for  the  manufacturers.  1  do  not  recollect 
that  Mr.  Ives  ever  said  to  me  that  he  was  authorized  to  offer  a  compensa- 
tion to  any  other  person,  nor  do  I  recollect  that  Mr.  Ives  said  to  me  that 
he  would  act  as  agent  for  the  manufacturers/' 

Mr.  Lounsberry  testifies  that  the  same  offer  of  compensation  was  made 
to  him,  by  Mr.  Ives,  almost  in  the  same  words,  if  he  would  consent  u  to 
work  for  the  manufacturers  ;M  and  a  similar  offer  was  made  by  Ives  and 
Wasson  to  Jos.  R.  Bleecker. 

Against  these  three  witnesses,  Mr.  Ives  interposes  nothing  more  than 
his  want  of  recollection  of  having  made  these  offers,  but  leaves  the  testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Taylor  in  its  full  force,  without  attempting,  in  any  manner, 
to  contradict  it. 

Again  :  Mr.  Ives,  in  his  examination  before  the  commissioners  on  the 
14th  June,  1841,  fn  answer  to  question  five,  whether  he  u  had  made  pres- 
ents, in  money  or  other  articles,  to  the  collector,  or  any  other  officer  of 
the  customs,"  replied  that  he  had  not  j  that  u  to  the  appraisers  he  did  not 
recoflect  having  given  any  article,  of  any  value  ;  nor  have  I  loaned  them, 
money  or  sold  them  goods,  with  the  understanding,  express  or  implied,, 
that  payment  was  not  to  be  made,  or  has  not  been  subsequently  demanded, 
or  to  any  other  officer  in  or  connected  with  the  custom-house ." 

He  further  adds,  in  his  answer  to  this  question  :  (i  The  only  indebted- 
ness is  that  of  Joseph  R.  Bleecker,  in  a  note  due  1st  January,  1841,  for 
cash  loaned  and  goods  sold,  which  he  is  expected  to  pay — amount,  two 
hundred  and  forty-rive  dollars  and  twenty-five  cents.  /  have  not  made 
presents  to  him,  nor  is  he  indebted  to  me  in  any  further  sum-." 

On  the  11th  day  of  December,  1841,  Mr.  Ives  was  again  examined, 
and  interrogated  particularly  whether  he  had  paid  "  to  Jos.  R.  Bleecker, 
late  assistant  cashier  of  the  custom-house,  money  or  other  valuable  thing?, 
in  consideration  of  any  service  or  facility  rendered  or  to  be  rendered 
by  him  to  said  Ives,  as  an  officer  of  the  customs  ;"  to  which  he  replied  : 
"  I  was  in  (he  habit  of  paying  Mr.  Phillips,  the  former  cashier,  about 
two  hundred  dollars  a  year,  and  continued  the  same  to  Mr.  Bleecker" 
He  further  states,  "  Bleecker  then  owed  Labron  &  Ives  between  $200  and 
§300,  for  goods  and  money  lent,  which  I  had  charged  to  him,  but,,  at  the 
time  of  such  charge,  I  did  not  expect  to  collect  it  of  him." 

The  service  rendered  for  the  considerations  above  specified  by  Mr. 
Ives  he  explains  as  follows  :  u  I  was  in  the  habit  of  handing  to  Mr. 
Bleecker,  assistant  cashier,  checks  without  date  for  cash  duties,  instead  of 
paying  the  money.  These  checks  were  held  by  Mr.  Bleecker,  without  the 
knowledge  of  Mr.  Waters,  the  cashier,  sometimes  ten  or  fifteen  days-. 
Bleecker  kept  them  in  a  black  box  under  the  counter;"  and  he  adds,  "  it 
was  understood,  between  Mr.  Bleecker  and  myself,  that  the  transactions  in. 
regard  to  the  checks  should  not  be  exposed  to  Mr.  Waters,  the  cashier." 

In  the  examination  of  Mr.  Waters,  the  cashier,  the  following  question 
was  put  to  him  :  whether  u  he  had  not  received  the  checks  of  Labron 


Rep.  No.  G69. 


73 


Ives  by  order  of  the  late  collector,  and  noted  them  as  cash,  with  the  un- 
derstanding that  they  were  not  to  be  presented  for  payment  within  a  stip- 
ulated time  to  which  he  replied  :  11  I  have  had  permission  from  Mr. 
Hoyt,  on  some  occasions,  to  allow  Labron  &  Ives's  checks  to  be  received 
and  noted  as  cash,  for  short  periods  of  time." 

Mr.  Hoyt,  in  his  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  heretofore 
referred  to,  states,  substantially,  the  same  fact,  on  the  subject  of  checks 
ordered  by  him  to  be  received  as  cash  from  certain  merchants  whose 
credit  he  deemed  to  be  undoubted.  Thus  Mr.  Ives  is  flatly  contra- 
dicted in  his  statements,  both  by  the  collector  and  cashier,  and  stands 
convicted,  on  this  evidence,  of  wilful  falsehood.  It  will  be  seen,  also, 
that,  in  June  last,  he  testified  expressly  that  he  had  not  given  to  the  ap- 
praisers, or  to  any  other  officer  of  the  customs,  goods,  money,  or  valuable 
things,  or  lent  money  to  them,  jwith  an  understanding,  express  or  im- 
plied, that  they  were  not  to  be  called  on  for  payment,  in  consideration  of 
any  service  rendered  or  to  be  rendered  by  them,  in  their  official  capacity  ; 
and  particularly,  with  regard  to  Jos.  R.  Bleecker,  he  states  that  his  only  in- 
debtedness was  a  note  of  $245  25,  which  he  expected  him  to  pay.  "  I 
have  not  made  presents  to  him,  nor  is  he  indebted  to  me  in  any  further  sum."* 
In  direct  opposition  to  these  statements,  Mr.  Ives,  in  his  deposition  taken 
in|  December  last,  swears  that  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  paying  Phillips, 
the  former  cashier,  about  $200  a  year,  and  continued  the  same  to 
Mr.  Bleecker,  who  stood  indebted  to  him  between  two  and  three  hundred 
dollars  for  goods  and  cash,  which  "  I  had  charged  to  him,  but,  at  the 
time  of  such  charge,  I  did  not  expect  to  collect  of  him."  These  sums  are 
admitted  by  Mr.  Ives  to  have  been  paid  for  facilities  rendered  by  Phil- 
lips and  Bleecker,  in  their  official  capacity.  Both  of  these  depositions, 
conflicting  in  every  material  point,  cannot  be  true  ;  and  it  follows,  of  course, 
that  George  R.  Ives  stands  self-convicted  of  swearing  falsely  on  the  same 
subject,  before  the  same  tribunal.  Was  such  a  man  worthy  of  belief  in  a 
case  where  his  own  interests  were  deeply  involved  ?  Was  he  not  a  fit 
person  to  be  selected  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  as  a  standing  witness  in  trials  for  sei- 
zures made  in  part  on  his  own  information,  in  connexion  with  accomplices 
known  and  recognised  by  Mr.  Hoyt  in  his  official  character  as  collector 
of  this  port  ? 

Backed  by  these  witnesses,  such  as  they  have  been  proved  to  be,  Mr. 
Hoyt  opened,  on  a  large  scale,  the  business  of  seizures,  and  informed  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that  it  was  his  intention  to  seize  all  the  wool- 
lens that  might  be  brought  into  the  port  of  New  York  by  foreign  importers, 
or  such  as  were  usually  known  by  the  denomination  of  "  Yorkshiremen." 
How  well  he  fulfilled  this  purpose  will  now  be  shown. 

Cairns  entered  the  woollens  loft  on  the  19th  of  July,  1S39,  clothed  with 
plenary  powers;  and,  to  make  assurance  doubly  sure,  Mr.  Hoyt  informs 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that,  about  this  time,  he  spent  one-half  his 
time  in  that  loft,  and,  by  their  combined  efforts,  woollens  were  raised  and 
seized,  belonging  entirely  to  foreign  houses,  in  the  course  of  one  month,, 
amounting  to  about  $100,000  in  the  port  of  New  York,  and  in  other  ports 
to  an  amount  exceeding  $300,000.  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  his  letter  (see  Appen- 
dix F)  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  of  August  1, 1839,  excuses  him- 
self for  not  having  answered  the  Treasury  circular  of  the  9th  of  July,  on 
the  subject  of  duties  paid  under  protest,  alleging  that  Wasson,  and  some 
other  custom-house  officers,  had  gone  to  give  testimony  in  Boston  ;  that 


74 


Rep.  No.  669. 


he  had  spent  "  half  his  time  in  the  woollens  loft that  large  cargoes  of 
goods  had  just  arrived,  which  required  his  particular  attention,  in  person, 
at  the  appraiser's  department  to  make  certain  reforms  in  that  department," 
as  a  matter  of  the  first  importance,  to  the  end  that  the  Government  might 
have  the  benefit  of  such  reforms;  and  he  exultingly  adds:  "  I  console  my- 
self with  the  belief  that  I  have  saved  the  Government,  in  that  time,  by 
reason  of  these  reforms,  a  much  larger  sum  than  I  hold  under  protest,  or 
have  ever  held." 

In  another  letter  to  the  Secretary,  he  states  the  sum  held  under  protest, 
and  not  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  Government,  at  $103,910  18,  which 
he  considers  unimportant,  compared  with  the  splendid  results  which  he 
anticipated  from  the  seizure  of  woollens  which  he  was  in  the  act  of  making, 
-and  which  he  signified  his  intention  to  continue,  until  he  had  driven  out 
all  the  foreign  importers,  and  transferred  the  business,  as  he  says,  "  to 
honest  men."  But  these  golden  dreams  of  benefit  to  himself  and  to  the 
public  Treasury,  from  the  spoils  in  prospect,  arising  out  of  his  unlimited 
system  of  seizures,  was  destined  to  end  in  disappointment.  In  all  the 
cases,  or  nearly  all,  which  were  docketed  for  trial  in  the  district  court  of 
the  United  States  for  the  southern  district  of  New  York,  the  verdicts  of 
the  juries  were  in  favor  of  the  claimants.  By  a  report  from  the  clerk  of 
the  district  court,  it  appears  that,  in  thirty-three  trials  had  under  seizures 
made  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  thirty-two  verdicts  were  rendered  for  the  claimants, 
and  only  one  conviction,  exclusive  of  cases  on  which  appeals  or  writs  of 
error  have  been  taken  from  the  decision  of  Judge  Betts,  by  the  claimants 
or  the  Government,  which  are  still  pending.  In  many  cases,  the  value  of 
goods  seized  was  of  an  amount  too  small  to  justify  the  expense  of  a  trial 
in  court,  and,  in  such  cases,  the  goods  were  abandoned,  whether  rightfully 
seized  or  not,  and  the  collector  took  the  benefit  of  whatever  sum  such 
goods  might  command  in  the  market.  Whether  the  $103,910  18  of  du- 
ties held  under  protest,  or  any  part  of  it,  has  been  either  credited  to  or 
paid  into  the  Treasury,  does  not  appear  in  any  part  of  the  evidence  in  the 
possession  of  the  commissioners;  but  it  is  certain  that  Mr.  Hoyt  would 
have  rendered  much  greater  services  to  the  Government  by  paying  over 
that  sum,  as  he  was  bound  to  do,  than  by  his  patriotic  efforts  at  reform, 
which,  according  to  his  estimate,  made  in  anticipation,  would  have  secured 
to  the  Government  a  much  larger  sum  than  he  held  under  protest  at  that 
time,  or  than  he  had  ever  held. 

Rebuked  and  disheartened  by  his  failure  to  condemn  any  portion  of 
foreign  woollens  put  under  seizure  by  him,  his  previous  exultations  and 
bright  anticipations  from  that  source  were  turned  into  mourning  and  lam- 
entations over  faithless  courts  and  juries.  He  informed  Messrs.  Lawrence 
&  Stone,  of  Boston,  of  his  discomfiture  in  these  words:  M  We  have  been 
beaten  by  the  courts  and  juries  in  all  our  efforts  to  carry  out  what  we 
thought  the  true  interpretation  oj  the  tariff." 

Why  this  particular  information  was  given  to  a  house  largely  engaged 
in  the  manufacture  of  domestic  woollens,  and  whose  advice  to  raise  the 
standard  of  value  on  foreign  woollens  wras  given  to  Mr.  Hoyt  immediately 
after  he  came  into  office,  may  be  readily  inferred. 

The  peculiar  phraseology  used  is  remarkable.  "  We  have  been  beaten 
in  all  our  efforts"  would  seem  to  imply  an  existing  connexion  between 
the  parties,  for  the  accomplishment  of  a  common  object.  This  conclusion 
is  enforced  by  the  instructions  of  Mr.  Hoyt  to  Mr.  Butler,  the  district 


Rep.  No.  669.  75 

attorney,  (see  Appendix  G,)  under  date  of  July  13,  1839,  in'which  he 
states :  u  In  case  of  my  sudden  demise,  which  Heaven  forbid,  I  wish  you 
to  call  as  a  witness  in  the  ease  of  cloths  seized  belonging  to  Solomon, 
and  about  which  a  commission  is  going  to  England,  Hugh  P.  Kendall, 
of  Boston,  who  made  a  passage  in  the  Great  Western  with  Solomon, 
shortly  after  the  seizure,  and  with  whom  Kendall  conversed. " 

"  If  you  write  to  Messrs.  W.  S.  Lawrence  Stone,  of  Boston,  they 
will  procure  the  attendance  of  Mr,  Kendall  for  us." 

And  on  the  same  day  he  wrote  to  the  district  attorney  as  follows  :  a  In 
the  case  of  F.  Schrann  &  Co.'s  cloths,  under  seizure,  I  wish  you  to  cnll 
one  of  the  firm  of  Ii.  W.  &  T.  Mali,  or  all  of  them,  to  prove  that  the 
manufacturers  are  in  the  habit  of  invoicing  their  Swiss  or  German  cloths 
at  what  it  costs  to  make  them." 

"  I  wish  you  also  to  write  to  W.  &  S.  Lawrence  &  Stone,  of  Boston, 
for  the  names  of  some  oi  their  merchants  who  have  been  (here,  and  could 
not  purchase,  for  the  reason  that  the  manufacturers  sent  them  all  here,  to 
enter  at  this  mode  of  invoicing  them.  The  Messrs.  Lawrence  will  pro- 
cure such  persons  to  come  here  and  testify." 

u  I  write  you  these  matters  now,  under  an  impression  that  you  file  the 
letters  away  with  the  papers  in  the  case,  and  that,  when  you  are  about  to 
prepare  for  the  trial  of  the  cause,  you  will  be  reminded  of  it;  and  if  I 
make  a  memorandum  of  the  facts,  it  may  never  reach  you,  in  the  case  of 
my  death  or  resignation,  neither  of  which  I  have  any  ambition  to  see  car- 
ried out." 

These  letters  speak  for  themselves;  and  no  one  can  believe  that  the 
district  attorney  was  referred  to  Messrs.  Lawrence  &  Stone,  to  search 
for  witnesses  in  Boston,  on  any  other  than  the  ground  of  a  clear  under- 
standing between  Mr.  Hoyt  and  the  woollen  manufacturers  of  New  Eng- 
land, that  each  should  sustain  the  other  in  the  pending  seizure  trials  in 
New  York,  in  which  they  were  mutually  interested;  and  that  Mr.  Hoyt 
felt  himself  fully  authorized  to  call  on  that  house  to  supply  any  deficiency 
of  evidence  in  these  trials.  The  standing  witnesses  before  named  were 
always  ready,  except  when  absent  on  seizures  or  trials  in  other  cities,  but 
they  had  lost  the  confidence  of  the  New  York  juries;  the  appraisers,  it 
seems,  would  not  answer  the  purpose  ;  and  the  merchants,  on  whose  evi- 
dence Mr.  Hoyt  professed  to  rely  to  throw  the  onus  on  the  claimants, 
by  affixing  a  higher  standard  of  value  on  foreign  woollens  than  the  ap- 
praisers could  be  induced  to,  had  failed  to  meet  the  expectations  of  the 
collector  in  this  respect,  and  nothing  remained  but  to  appeal  to  the  man- 
ufacturing interest  of  New  England  to  send  witnesses  to  supply  their 
places,  and  by  such  evidence  to  raise  the  standard  above  the  invoice 
prices,  and  thus  throw  the  burden  of  proof  on  the  claimants.  Hence 
these  letters  to  the  district  attorney  pointing  him  to  Messrs.  Lawrence  & 
Stone  as  suitable  persons  to  procure  the  attendance  of  merchants  from 
Boston,  to  give  evidence  on  seizures  made  in  New  York. 

On  the  same  subject,  Mr.  Hoyt  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  under  date  of  May  26th,  1840,  in  which  he  complains  of 
the  courts  and  juries,  and  the  trading  community,  and  despairing  of 
the  success  of  his  seizures.  He  expresses  his  determination  to  appraise 
all  invoices  of  woollens,  and  receive  the  duties,  reserving  to  himself  the 
ulterior  right  to  seize  the  goods  on  which  duties  have  been  so  paid, 
wheresoever  they  might  be  found,  and,  by  means  of  such  testimony  as  he 


76 


Rep.  No.  669. 


could  command  from  his  subordinates  in  the  custom-house,  to  run  the 
hazard  of  procuring  a  condemnation  of  the  goods  thus  seized  after  the 
duties  had  been  paid,  in  which  event  he  would  be  the  gainer  to  the  ex- 
tent of  his  proportion  of  all  forfeitures;  and  in  case  the  prosecution  or 
prosecutions  should  fail,  and  the  goods  be  adjudged  to  the  claimant  or 
claimants,  the  whole  costs  being  paid  by  the  Government,  he  suffered  no 
loss  by  the  failure.  To  this  motive  for  passing  the  goods  and  raising 
the  duties,  and  for  a  subsequent  seizure  of  them  at  any  place  to  which 
they  might  be  transferred  for  a  market,  may  be  added  the  uniform  prac- 
tice, pursued  by  Mr.  Ho\t,  of  retaining  all  the  duties  on  goods  subsequently 
seized,  until  the  final  trial  of  the  cause  ;  and  in  all  such  cases  no  return 
was  made  of  these  duties,  so  paid  to  the  Treasury,  until  it  might  suit  the 
collector  to  bring  the  cases  to  a  final  judgment ;  thus  giving  to  the  collect- 
or the  use  of  large  sums  of  money  received  for  duties,  and  actually  be- 
longing to  the  Treasury,  for  an  indefinite  period  of  time,  without  interest; 
all  which  was  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ;  and  the  system 
was  carried  out  by  Mc.  Hoyt  to  a  very  great  extent  in  the  cities  of  Phila- 
delphia and  Baltimore,  to  the  great  injury  and  annoyance  of  foreign  com- 
merce and  of  the  public  revenue. 

The  following  extract  of  the  letter  above  referred  to  will  show  the  inten- 
tions of  the  collector,  which  are  more  clearly  demonstrated  by  the  fact 
stated  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  that  "  certain  entries  of  woollens  on  which  duties 
had  been  paid  were  absent  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  as  evidence  to 
be  used  there;"  which  is  at  once  an  admission  that  these  woollens  had 
been  entered  previously  at  the  port  of  New  York,  and  the  duties  had  been 
paid  thereon. 

Exlract  of  a  letter  from  J.  Hoyt  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
dated  May  26,  1840: 

u  I  also  came  to  the  determination,  the  more  effectually  to  break  up  the 
system  of  defrauding  the  revenue,  to  seize  every  piece  of  woollen  goods 
that  was  put  up  fifteen  per  cent,  above  the  invoice  by  the  appraisers,  pro- 
vided the  appraisement  was  sustained  by  merchant  appraisers.  In  the  fix- 
ing the  standard  of  fifteen  per  cent.,  I  had  reference  to  a  difference  in 
the  skill  of  purchasers  and  to  errors  in  judgment  in  estimating  value.  I 
persevered  in  this  system  with  much  uniformity,  until  it  was  perfectly 
manifest  that  I  had  no  essential  support  through  the  public  press,  the 
jurors'  box,  or  the  general  trading  classes.  It  occurred  to  me,  then,  that  a 
change  in  the  course  I  had  adopted  might  promote  the  interest  of  the  United 
States.  I  therefore  concluded  that  I  would  thereafter,  in  case  of  entries 
of  woollens  that  were  put  up  above  the  invoice  value,  permit  the  entry  to 
be  completed  on  the  importer's  paying  the  duty  on  the  appraised  value.  I 
now  send  you  a  list  of  those  cases,  (marked  B,)  showing  the  duty  on  the 
invoice  value  and  also  on  the  appraised  value.  Some  of  the  entries  being 
now  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  as  evidence  to  be  used  there,  I  can- 
not give  the  amount  of  duties  in  all  of  them.  Whether  I  had  the  discretion 
to  adopt  this  course,  you  will  decide." 

Under  this  new  experiment,  seizures  of  foreign  woollens  imported  into 
New  York,  where  they  were  regularly  appraised  and  the  duties  paid, 
were  made,  to  a  large  amount,  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  to  which 
places  the  goods  had  been  consigned  to  factors  or  agents,  for  market. 
The  following  is  a  list  of  the  seizures  made  in  Philadelphia,  on  the  oath, 
of  William  Cairns  and  others  : 


Rep.  No.  669. 


77 


[This  document  has  been  abstracted  from  the  room  of  the  commission- 
ers.] 

The  whole  of  the  above  schedule  of  invoices  consisted  oi  cloths  and 
cassimeres,  subject  to  an  ad  valorem  duty.  They  were  regularly  entered 
and  appraised,  after  strict  examination,  at  the  port  of  New  York,  accord- 
ing to  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  May,  1828,  section  8,  and  the  subse- 
quent acts  prescribing  the  mode  in  which  the  duties  on  foreign  woollens, 
or  goods  of  which  wool  shall  be  a  component  part,  shall  be  ascertained 
and  assessed.  The  duties  on  these  invoices  having  been  estimated  at  the 
appraised  value  of  the  goods  made  by  the  public  appraisers,  and  by  them 
certified  to  the  collector,  were  paid  in  cash  by  the  owner  or  consignee, 
and  a  regular  permit  given  to  each  importer,  under  the  authority  of  which 
these  goods  were  delivered  to  the  owners  or  consignees,  and  by  them 
shipped  to  the  cities  of  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  to  be  sold  for  their 
benefit. 

It  appears  by  the  evidence,  that  at  the  time  these  goods  were  appraised 
and  passed,  and  the  duties  paid  at  the  custom-house  in  New  York,  no  dif- 
ficulty occurred  in  fixing  the  value  according  to  the  forms  prescribed  by 
law,  no  allegation  of  fraud  or  attempt  at  fraud  was  made  or  intimated,  but 
in  all  respects  the  appraisement  was  carefully  and  fairly  made,  without  any 
interference  on  the  part  of  the  importers,  to  influence  or  warp  the  judg- 
ment of  the  appraisers.  Some  time  after  the  removal  of  these  goods  to 
Philadelphia,  varying  from  two  to  fourteen  months  from  the  date  of 
the  entry,  certain  woollen  manufacturers,  in  and  aboyt  the  said  city,  being, 
as  they  state  in  their  evidence,  interested  in  preventing  the  introduction 
of  goods  of  that  description  into  Philadelphia  for  a  market,  gave  information 
to  the  district  attorney,  that,  in  their  opinion,  these  woollens  were  invoiced 
below  their  real  value  at  the  place  whence  imported.  These  manufac- 
turers did  not  profess  to  have  any  knowledge  of  their  own,  either  as  to 
the  qualify  of  the  cloths  and  cassimeres  concerning  which  they  had  given 
their  opinion,  nor  of  the  invoice  prices  or  the  appraised  value  affixed  on 
them  by  the  New  York  appraisers,  but  the  whole  of  their  information 
rested  on  conjecture  and  surmise,  heightened  by  the  deep  interest  which 
they  testify  they  had  in  excluding  such  goods  from  competition  with  their 
own  manufactures  of  the  same  class. 

A  correspondence  sprung  up  between  the  district  attorney  of  the  east- 
ern district  of  Pennsylvania  and  Jesse  Hoyt,  collector  of  the  port  of  New 
York,  concerning  these  woollens,  which  were  represented  as  suspected 
goods,  which  had  passed  fraudulently  through  the  custom-house  at  New 
York,  and  without  the  slightest  evidence  to  justify  even  suspicion  as  to 
the  fairness  of  the  entry  and  passage  of  the  goods,  or  of  the  owners  or 
importers,  or  of  the  ship  in  which  they  were  imported.  Jesse  Hoyt,  on 
the  receipt  of  the  letter  of  the  district  attorney  bearing  date  the  17th 
August,  1839,  despatched  on  the  next  day  two  of  his  standing  witnesses, 
George  A.  Wasson  and  William  Cairns,  in  pursuit  of  all  woollen  goods 
suspected  to  have  been  imported  into  New  York,  and  belonging  to  foreign 
importers,  w  hich  might  be  found  in  the  cities  of  Philadelphia  or  Baltimore. 
In  his  letter  of  instructions  to  William  Cairns,  bearing  date  16th  August, 
1839,  Mr.  Hoyt  says:  u  I  recommend  that  you  call  on  Mr.  Read,  the  dis- 
trict attorney,  early  in  the  morning,  and  learn  the  particulars,  and,  if  the 
goods  came  from  New  York,  .seize  them  at  all  events  till  ice  have  time  to 
investigate  the  matter,''-    (  See  testimony  of  Williams  Cairns. )  Faith- 


78 


Rep.  No.  669. 


ful  to  his  trust,  Mr.  Cairns  proceeded  to  Philadelphia,  and  on  the  19th  o 
August,  being  the  day  following  the  date  of  his  instructions,  appeared  be- 
fore William  Milner,  an  alderman  in  that  city,  and  made  oath  that,  u  from 
information,  he  has  reason  to  believe  that  a  large  quantity  of  woollen 
goods  imported  into  the  port  of  New  York,  and  which  were  entered  at 
prices  below  their  real  value,  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  the  revenue, 
have  been  transported  from  New  York  to  Philadelphia,  and  are  now 
stored  in  stoies  Nos.  42  and  44,  North  Front  street;  and  further  declares 
that  he  is  an  inspector  of  the  port  and  district  of  New  York."  In  conse- 
quence of  this  affidavit,  and  several  other  similar  affidavits,  one  hundred 
and  fifty-two  invoices  of  woollens,  belonging  to  foreign  importers,  besides 
other  invoices  belonging  to  American  importing  merchants,  were  put  un- 
der seizure  in  the  cities  of  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  to  which  latter 
city  George  A.  Wasson  had  been  ordered,  for  like  purposes  with  those  for 
which  Cairns  had  been  despatched  to  Philadelphia. 

It  will  be  seen  that  none  of  the  affidavits,  either  of  Cairns  or  Wasson, 
or  other  persons  called  on  for  similar  affidavits,  conformed  to  the  act  of 
1799,  section  68,  which  prescribes  the  substance  of  the  oath  to  be  taken 
before  a  warrant  of  seizure  shall  be  granted,  by  virtue  of  which  any 
dwelling-house,  building,  store,  or  other  place,  may  be  entered  to  search 
for  goods  supposed  to  be  therein  concealed.  The  above  section  requires 
that  the  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise,  should  be  "subject  to  duty;" 
second,  that  they  should  be  concealed  lor  the  purpose  of  avoiding  pay- 
ment of  duties;  third,  that  the  duties  should  not  have  been  paid  on  such 
goods,  wares,  and  merchandise.  The  affidavits  do  not  cover  a  single  re- 
quisition of  the  act,  but  extend  only  to  the  u  opinion"  of  the  witnesses, 
lounded  on  information  professed  to  have  been  received,  but  from  what 
source  is  not  given,  that  the  goods  were  of  a  suspicious  character,  and 
that  they  had  passed  the  custom-house  at  New  York  at  prices  below  their 
real  value,  for  the  puppose  of  defrauding  the  revenue.  No  suggestion  is 
made  or  intimated  that  the  duties  had  not  been  paid,  which  is  made  indis- 
pensable by  the  law  to  the  forfeiture  of  the  goods.  It  is  evident,  there- 
fore, that  the  stores  were  entered,  in  which  these  goods  were  seized,  un- 
der a  warrant  which  was  wholly  unauthorized  by  law. 

The  circumstances  attending  these  seizures  throughout  were  of  a  char- 
acter the  most  remarkable,  and,  it  may  be  added,  unprecedented,  in  the 
judicial  history  of  the  country.  The  woollen  manufacturers  of  Phila- 
delphia, Bullock,  Malthouse,  &  Winpenny,  who  first  informed  Mr.  Read, 
the  district  attorney  of  the  eastern  district  of  Pennsylvania,  that  these 
woollens  were  in  store  in  Philadelphia,  and  on  whose  information  Mr. 
Cairns  had  made  his  affidavit  before  Alderman  Milner,  refused  to  testify 
to  any  fact  which  would  authorize  the  inception  of  a  prosecution  against 
the  goods,  concerning  which  they  had  desired  the  action  of  the  district 
attorney.  They  expressly  state  that  they  had  no  knowledge  whatever  of 
the  quality  of  these  goods,  of  the  price  at  which  they  had  been  invoiced 
or  passed,  or  any  other  matter  touching  their  importation  into  the  port  of 
Now  York;  and  yet,  although  these  men  refused  to  make  affidavit  them- 
selves, as  the  foundation  of  a  warrant  of  seizure,  Mr.  Cairns  did  not  hesi- 
tate, on  their  representations,  to  make  the  affidavit,  in  which  he  goes  be- 
yond the  information  which  they  had  imparted  to  him,  and  swears  posi- 
tively that  11  these  same  goods  were  entered  at  prices  below  their  real 
value,  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  the  revenue and  then  points  to  the 


Rep.  No.  669.  79 


No.'s  of  the  stores  in  which  they  might  be  found,  without  having  any 
knowledge  of  his  own  that  any  such  goods  were  in  Philadelphia,  or  that 
they  had  passed  the  custom-house  in  New  York,  or  of  any  other  matter 
or  thing  connected  with  them !    But  he  obeyed  the  instructions  of  Mr. 
Hoyt,  who  ordered  him,  at  all  events,  to  seize  any  woollens  that  might  be 
"suspected"  as  having  been  imported  into  New  York,  and  detain  them 
"  till  we  have  time  to  investigate  the  matter."    Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector, 
in  a  letter  (see  Appendix  H)  to  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  district  attorney  for 
the  district  of  New  York,  dated  18th  January,  1840,  in  explaining  the 
grounds  of  the  seizure  of  certain  free  goods  of  the  Messrs.  Haights,  com- 
posed of  worsted  and  linen,  informs  the  district  attorney,  that,  in  his 
opinion,  "the  plaintiff  cannot  claim  the  article  to  be  free  for  the  reason 
that  they  are  worsted  stuffs,  but  probably  on  the  ground  that  the  materials 
of  which  the  article  is  composed  are  both  free.    In  logic,  two  negatives 
make  an  affirmative;  and,  by  a  parity  of  reasoning,  a  combination  of  two 
free  articles  might  make  a  dutiable  one      and  in  the  same  letter  he  says, 
t(  I  send  Mr.  Cairns  and  Mr.  James,  who  examined  the  goods,  and  can 
tell  you  what  the  article  is,  and  will  confirm  what  I  say      and  in  another 
letter  (see  Appendix  I)  to  Mr.  Butler,  of  the  20th  January,  1840,  he  in- 
forms him  that  "  Mr.  Cairns  will  explain  the  case  as  we  understand  it.n 
These  quotations  are  selected  from  the  official  correspondence  of  Mr. 
Hoyt  with  the  law  officers  of  the  Government,  out  of  numerous  others  of 
the  same  character,  to  show  the  liiiht  in  which  he  viewed  this  witness, 
William  Cairns,  as  one  who  might  be  relied  on,  in  all  cases,  to  confirm 
the  statements  of  the  collector,  however  absurd  and  ridiculous,  even  to 
the  extent  of  a  logical  conclusion  that,  as  two  negatives  make  an  affirma- 
tive, so  an  article  might  become  dutiable  which  was  composed  of  two  free 
articles.    To  the  same  extent,  these  standing  witnesses,  Wasson  and 
Cairns,  were  recommended  to  the  district  attorneys  of  Pennsylvania  and 
Maryland,  on  whose  evidence  they  might  depend  for  explaining  every 
thing  concerning  goods  seized  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  as  they 
were  understood  by  the  collector  at  New  York.    They  did  not  disappoint 
these  expectations.    On  the  affidavit  of  Cairns,  above  quoted,  and  a  simi- 
lar affidavit  of  Wasson  in  Baltimore,  and  a  few  others  whom  they  had 
selected  for  the  purpose,  woollen  goods  in  those  cities  were  indiscrimi- 
nately seized,  without  regard  to  their  character,  the  place  whence  import- 
ed, or  the  port  into  which  they  were  brought,  to  give  Mr.  Hoyt  time  to 
investigate  the  matter.    Among  these  were  included  some  woollens  of 
domestic  manufacture,  others  imported  directly  into  the  port  of  Philadel- 
phia, some  which  had  been  before  seized  in  New  York  and  returned  to 
the  owner  ;  others  purchased  at  auction  in  New  York,  where  they  had 
been  publicly  sold,  and  whether  they  were  domestic  or  foreign  woollens 
there  were  no  means  of  ascertaining,  except  by  mere  conjecture.    In  some 
instances,  Mr.  Cairns  caused  to  be  seized,  under  his  general  affidavit,  a 
large  amount  of  goods  which  he  had  himself  examined,  appraised,  and 
passed,  at  the  New  York  custom-house,  which,  according  to  his  affidavit, 
had  been  entered  below  their  real  value,  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding 
the  revenue.    In  other  cases,  the  goods  seized  had  been  raised  above  the 
invoice  price,  and  the  duties  paid  on  the  increased  value  ;  and  in  others, 
the  goods  were  appraised  without  invoice,  and  the  duties  paid  according 
to  appraisement.    Among  these  indiscriminate  seizures,  was  one  of  pecu- 
liar hardship  and  atrocity  amounting  to  downright  persecution.  Joseph 


80 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Wridley,  a  youth,  who  was  a  manufacturing  operative  in  England,  skilled 
in  the  manufacture  of  woollens,  emigrated  to  the  United  States  for  the 
purpose  of  finding  employment  in  our  own  manufacturing  establishments. 
He  was  poor,  and  dependent  wholly  on  his  labor  for  a  subsistence. 
Shortly  after  his  arrival  in  New  Yorkf  being  February,  1839,  his  brother 
shipped  to  him,  as  his  own  propei ty,  one  case  of  woollens,  which  consti- 
tuted all  he  possessed  in  the  world.  The  goods  arrived  in  New  York 
on  the  9th  of  June  of  the  same  year  :  they  were  regularly  and  carefully 
examined  by  the  appraisers,  and  passed  at  the  invoice  price.  This  youth 
removed  to  Philadelphia,  to  seek  employment  in  his  line  of  business,  and 
took  with  him  this  case  of  woollens,  placed  the  same  at  the  store  of  Davis, 
Broadbent,&  Co.,  for  sale,  at  which  place  they  were  seized  on  the  sweep- 
ing affidavit  of  William  Cairns,  to  be  kept  until  Mr.  Hoyt  had  time  to  in- 
vestigate the  matter,  according  to  order.  The  young  man,  being  entirely 
ignorant  of  our  laws,  and  no  cause  having  been  assigned  to  him  for  the 
seizure,  was  unable  to  take  the  proper  steps  to  reclaim  the  goods  thus 
fraudulently  and  illegally  put  under  seizure.  He  is  too  poor  to  assert  his 
claim  in  a  court  of  justice,  and  in  this  situation  the  matter  rests.  This 
Government,  under  the  orders  of  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York, 
and  the  perjured  testimony  of  a  witness  selected  by  him,  took  possession 
of,  and  now  hold,  all  the  earthly  goods  of  this  poor  operative,  who  came 
into  our  country  to  give  us  the  benefit  of  his  skill  in  the  manufacture  of 
woollens,  who  is  too  ignorant  to  understand  his  rights,  and  too  poor  to 
assert  tnem  in  a  legal  controversy. 

It  may  now  be  useful  to  look  into  the  testimony  of  William  Cairns,  under 
whose  oath  all  these  enormous  seizures  were  made  in  Philadelphia,  as  giv- 
en before  the  commissioners  in  the  month  of  June  last.  In  answer  to  the 
18th  question  put  to  him  by  the  board,  he  says  :  u  1  was  sent  to  Philadel- 
phia in  consequence  of  Mr.  Hoyt  having  received  information,  from  the  dis- 
trict attorney  of  Pennsylvania,  that  there  were  a  suspicious  parcel  of  goods 
then  in  Philadelphia,  as  he,  the  district  attorney,  was  informed.  I  did  make 
oath  th  at  the  goods  were  fraudulently  entered,  as  I  was  informed  and 
verily  believed.  That  opinion  was  formed  from  the  information  I  received 
in  Philadelphia,  as  well  as  in  connexion  with  what  I  knew  of  the  numerous 
frauds  which  had  been  detected  here.  I  had  no  knowledge  of  the  goods,  did 
not  know  to  whom  they  belonged,  and  nothing  respecting  them  ^further  than 
I  have  stated,  that  they  were  a  suspicions  parcel  of  goods,  as  I  was  in- 
formed" 

By  reference  to  the  affidavit  of  Mr.  Cairns,  it  will  be  seen  that  he  swore 
positively,  and  not  as  he  was  informed,  that  all  the  goods  seized  by  his 
procurement  were  entered  u  at  prices  below  their  real  value,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  defrauding  the  revenue."  He  obeyed  the  orders  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  by 
causing  an  indiscriminate  seizure,  with  or  without  cause,  until  he  had 
time  to  investigate  the  matter.  It  will  appear  by  the  depositions  of  Bul- 
lock, Winpenny,  and  Malthouse,  from  whom  Mr.  Cairns  professes  to  have 
received  his  information,  that  they  had  no  knowledge  themselves  respect- 
ing these  goods,  of  any  nature  or  kind  whatsoever,  and  that  they  gave  none 
to  Mr.  Cairns  ;  so  that  he  falsely  testifies,  before  the  commissioners,  that  his 
affidavit  was  founded  on  information  received  in  Philadelphia;  and  it  is 
equally  false  that  he  connected  that  information  with  what  he  knew  of  the 
numerous  frauds  which  had  been  previously  detected  in  New  York — for, 
by  his  own  testimony,  it  appears  that  he  had  been  but  a  few  weeks  in  the 


Rep.  No.  669. 


81 


woollens  loft  prior  to  these  seizures  ;  and  although  particularly  questioned 
whether  he  had  caused  any  Yorkshire  importer  to  he  arrested  for  a  viola- 
tion of  the  revenue  laws,  he  unequivocally  denies  having  done  so,  or  that 
he  had  any  knowledge  of  seizures  made  by  order  of  the  collector  in  New 
York,  other  than  common  report  after  the  goods  were  seized. 

Such  is  the  man  whose  appointment  to  the  otfice  of  principal  appraiser 
was  strongly  recommended  and  insisted  on  by  the  woollen  manufacturers 
of  Boston  and  Lowell,  and  which  was  made  a  sine  qua  non  with  them  to 
the  appointment  of  Edward  Curtis  as  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York, 
who  also  gave  a  strong  recommendation  to  Mr.  Cairns  for  the  office  of  ap- 
praiser, representing  him  as  an  honest  man,  who  had  greatly  contributed  to 
the  detection  of  frauds  on  the  revenue,  for  which  he  had  been  persecuted  ; 
and,  after  three  months  of  examination,  his  infamy  was  so  fully  established 
that  Mr.  Curtis  was  literally  compelled  to  remove  him  ;  and  in  his  letter 
of  removal,  dated  on  the  10th  August,  184 1 ,  he  uses  the  following  emphat- 
ic language  :  "  It  becomes  my  painful  duty  to  acquaint  you  that  your  ser- 
vices are  no  longer  required  by  the  Government." 

The  whole  chain  of  evidence  taken  in  relation  to  William  Cairns,  from 
the  moment  he  was  placed  by  Jesse  Hoyt  in  the  woollens  loft,  to  the  ex- 
clusion of  the  principal  appraisers,  up  to  the  period  of  the  appointment  of 
Edward  Curtis  as  collector,  and  until  his  final  removal,  demonstrate,  be- 
yond the  reach  of  contradiction,  the  purposes  to  which  his  services  were 
to  be  applied,  in  the  embarrassment  of  the  woollercs  trade  for  the  benefit 
of  the  domestic  manufacturers,  and  the  advancement  of  that  interest  by 
the  destruction  of  the  revenues  which  would  have  otherwise  accrued  to 
the  Government  from  that  branch  of  foreign  commerce.  On  no  other 
ground  can  we  account  for  the  deep  solicitude  of  these  manufacturers  for 
his  appointment  to  the  office  of  appraiser,  connected  with  the  fact  estab- 
lished by  the  testimony  of  Hyatt  Smith  and  Thatcher  Tucker,  that  a  large 
manufacturing  house,  (Messrs.  Lawrence  &  Stone,  )representing  that  entire 
interest,  expressed  their  gratification  that  Mr.  Curtis  was  to  be  appointed 
collector  of  New  York,  in  which  event  Wasson  and  Cairns  would  be 
continued  in  office.  They  ivere  so  continued  in  office  by  Mr.  Curtis  un- 
til their  perfidy  was  so  clearly  established  that  it  became  his  painful  duty 
to  remove  them. 

This  digression  has  been  made  from  the  general  question  arising  out  of 
the  seizures  made  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  for  the  purpose  of  at- 
tracting the  attention  of  the  Government  to  the  corrupt  instruments  of 
Jesse  Hoyt  to  carry  out  his  system  of  passing  goods,  receiving  the  duties, 
and  subsequently  causing  their  seizure  in  distant  ports,  to  which  they 
might  be  removed  for  a  market.  These  corrupt  instruments  having  been 
continued  in  the  same  situation  in  which  he  found  them,  by  Mr.  Curtis, 
the  new  collector,  the  inference  is  irresistible,  as  well  from  deduction  as 
facts  established  by  the  evidence  taken  before  the  commissioners,  that  the 
same  system  of  seizures  would  have  been  continued  by  the  same  means,  if 
it  had  not  been  arrested  by  this  investigation.  It  is  not  deemed  necessary 
to  enter  minutely  into  the  seizures  made  through  the  agency  of  George 
A.  VVasson,  in  Baltimore,  as  in  every  essential  particular  they  correspond 
with  those  made  by  Cairns  in  Philadelphia  ;  and  the  principle  on  which 
they  were  placed  by  Hoyt,  the  collector,  being  the  same,  it  remains  to  be 
inquired  whether  that  principle  can  be  sustained  under  the  sanction  of 
the  revenue  laws  of  the  United  States.  This  question  will  nowr  be  ex- 
6 


82 


Rep.  ]STo.  669. 


amined  as  concisely  as  its  nature  and  character,  and  the  consequences  to 
the  revenue  connected  with  it,  will  permit. 

The  ultimate  expedients  resorted  to  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  to  subject  foreign 
woollens  imported  into  the  port  of  New  York  to  extraordinary  and  unu- 
sual difficulties,  for  the  double  purpose  of  contributing;  to  the  avarice  of 
the  collector  and  of  destroying  such  importations — to  throw,  as  Mr.  Hoyt 
expresses  himself,  that  branch  of  business  "  into  the  hands  of  honest  mer- 
chants" who  are  American  citizens,  are  two-foid.  First.  To  permit  the 
goods  to  be  entered  and  appraised,  and,  if  raised  above  the  invoice  price, 
to  receive  the  duties  on  the  increased  value,  but  if  passed  according  to  in- 
voice, to  receive  the  duties  at  that  rate;  and,  after  granting  a  permit  to  the 
owner  or  consignee,  to  take  possession  of  the  goods  thus  appraised  and 
passed,  to  follow  them  by  means  of  his  selected  agents,  Cairns  and  YVas- 
son,  to  the  places  to  which  they  might  be  subsequently  transferred,  and 
there  seize  them,  on  the  ground  that  they  had  been  entered  below  their 
real  cost  at  the  place  whence  imported,  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  the 
revenue.  These  seizures  and  prosecutions  are  made  under  the  66th  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  1799,  which  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  his  correspondence  with  the 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  states,  a  was  familiarly  called,  by  some  members 
of  the  legal  profession,  the  bloody  66/&." 

Second.  To  institute  prosecutions,  with  or  without  cause,  under  said 
section,  on  entries  made  while  Mr.  Swartwout  was  collector,  and,  by  de- 
taining in  store  subsequent  importations  m;ide  by  the  same  importers,  to 
coerce  the  payment  of  large  sums  of  money  as  penalties,  in  some  cases 
without  suit,  and  in  others  before  process  was  served,  and  in  all  of  them 
without  trial  or  the  judgment  of  the  district  court  of  the  United  States. 

The  question  arises,  whether  either  branch  of  these  proceedings  can  be 
justified  under  the  existing  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  the  commercial 
treaty  with  Great  Britain  and  other  foreign  countries?  It  would  seem  to 
be  clear  that,  to  sustain  an  action  for  a  fraudulent  entry  of  goods  under  the 
G6th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  such  entry  must  have  been  made,  and  the 
value  of  the  goods  ascertained,  in  strict  accordance  with  the  provisions  of 
that  section,  and  other  provisions  of  the  same  act  to  which  it  refers.  This 
section  requires  that  the  goods  shall  not  be  u  invoiced  according  to  the 
actual  cost  thereof  at  the  place  of  exportation,  with  design  to  evade  the 
duties  thereupon."  Second.  If  the  collector  shall  suspect  that  any  such 
goods,  wares,  or  merchandise,  are  not  invoiced  at  a  sum  equal  to  that  at 
which  they  have  been  usually  sold  in  the  place  or  country  from  which  they 
were  imported,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  collector  to  take  the  said  goods, 
wares,  or  merchandise,  into  his  possession,  and  retain  the  same,  with  due  and 
reasonable  care,  at  the  risk  and  expense  of  the  owner  or  owners,  consignee 
or  consignees,  thereof,  until  their  value,  at  the  time  and  place  of  importa- 
tion,shall  be  ascertained  by  two  reputable  rneixhants,  to  be  chosen  and  ap- 
pointed as  in  the  ease  of  damaged,  goods,  or  goods  not  accompanied  by  an 
invoice,  and  until  the  duties  arising  according  to  such  valuation  shall  be 
first  paid  or  secured  to  be  paid,  as  required  by  this  act  in  other  cases  of 
importation.  Third.  In  section  52  of  the  same  act,  to  which  the  above 
section  refers,  as  to  the  mode  of  making  appraisements  in  the  case  of 
damaged  goods,  or  goods  not  accompanied  with  an  invoice,  it  is  provided 
M  that,  for  the  appraisement  of  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise,  not  accom 
panied  with  the  or  iginal  invoice  of  their  cost,  or  to  ascertain  the  damage 
thereon  received  during  the  voyage,  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  collector 


Rep.  No.  669. 


83 


and,  upon  the  request  of  the  party,  he  is  required,  to  appoint  one  merchant, 
and  the  owner,  importer,  or  consignee,  to  appoint  another,  who  shall  ap- 
praise or  value  the  said  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise,  accordingly;  which 
appraisement  shall  be  subscribed  by  the  parties  making  the  same,  on  oath 
or  affirmation,  before  the  said  collector. " 

These  two  sections  of  the  act  of  1799  are  plain  and  explicit,  in  respect 
both  to  the  foundation  on  which  a  prosecution  for  a  fraudulent  entry  may 
be  instituted,  and  the  means  placed  under  the  control  of  the  collector,  to 
ascertain  the  real  cost  or  value  of  the  goods  at  the  place  from  which  they 
were  imported.  The  GGth  section  provides  that  the  cost  or  value  of  such 
goods  as  are  suspected  of  being  invoiced  below  the  standard  value  at  the 
place  whence  imported  shall  be  ascertained  by  two  reputable  merchants, 
and  then  refers  to  section  52  for  the  mode  of  selecting  such  merchants, 
and  their  duties,  as  in  the  case  of  damaged  goods,  or  goods  not  accompa- 
nied with  an  invoice.  It  will  also  be  seen  that,  under  these  sections,  the 
goods  so  appraised  are  not  to  be  delivered  to  the  owner  or  consignee,  un- 
til the  duties  on  such  appraisement' have  been  paid,  or  secured  to  be  paid. 
In  either  case,  the  goods  are  to  be  delivered  to  the  owner  or  consignee. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  whole  of  these  proceedings  are  required  to 
be  had  at  the  port  into  which  the  goods  are  imported  or  landed,  and  the  oath 
or  affirmation  of  the  appraisers,  prescribed  in  the  act,  is  directed  to  be  taken 
before  the  collector  of  such  port.  In  no  part  of  the  act  is  there  any  authority 
given  to  the  collector,  after  he  shall  have  received  the  duties  and  delivered 
the  goods  to  the  owneror  consignee,  to  pursue  them  wheresoever  they  may  be 
taken  for  a  market,  and  there  seize  them,  under  an  allegation  of  a  violation  of 
his  own  duty  in  permitting  them  to  pass  at  less  than  the  real  cost,  and  thereby 
subject  them  to  a  new  valuation  at  any  other  port  where  they  may  be  found. 
His  duties  require  him  to  make  all  the  necessary  investigations  to  satisfy 
himself  that  the  goods  are  fairly  invoiced  or  not,  and  if  he  be  of  opinion  or 
.suspects  that  they  are  not  fairly  invoiced,  with  a  view  of  defrauding  the 
revenue,  the  appraisement  by  merchants,  as  in  the  case  of  damaged  goods, 
or  goods  witfiout  invoice,  must  take  place  under  his  supervision,  forthwith  ; 
and  on  such  appraisement,  if  the  duties  be  paid  or  secured,  and  the  goods 
delivered,  his  power  over  them  thenceforth  ceases,  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses, unless  in  the  case  of  smuggled  or  concealed  goods,  where  no  duties 
have  been  paid,  which  are  at  all  times  and  in  all  places,  wheresoever  found, 
subject  to  seizure  on  sufficient  evidence  of  the  fact.  This  would  appear- 
to  be  a  plain  and  unsophisticated  interpretation  of  the  act  of  1799. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  the  goods  seized  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore, 
by  the  procurement  of  Jesse  Hfrjf,  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York, 
were  either  smuggled  into  the  United  States,  or  concealed,  or  that  the  du- 
ties ascertained  by  regular  appraisement  were  not  paid  at  the  port  of  New 
York  before  the  owners  or  consignees  received  the  permit  of  the  collec- 
tor to  take  possession  of  them.  It  is  admitted  that  every  thing  required 
by  law  to  be  done  by  the  importers  was  strictly  performed  and  fulfilled  in 
these  cases;  and  it  may  be  asked,  under  the  authority  of  what  law  of  the 
United  States  these  importers  could  be  disturbed,  in  seeking  a  market  for 
goods  thus  entered,  appraised,  passed,  duties  paid,  and  a  formal  delivery 
made  of  them,  under  the  sanction  of  the  same  collector,  who  undertakes 
to  allege  that  they  were  entered  below  their  real  cost,  with  his  own  ap- 
probation, after  being  duly  appraised  by  the  officers  of  the  Government 
appointed  for  the  purpose,  and  all  the  requisitions  of  the  revenue  laws 


84 


Rep.  No.  669. 


were  fully  complied  with  ?    But  the  act  of  1799,  prescribing  the  mode  of 
appraising  goods  which  may  be  suspected  of  being  invoiced  below  their 
real  cost,  has  been  entirely  superseded  and  annulled  by  subsequent  legis- 
lation.   That  act  makes  no  provision  for  the  appointment  of  appraisers, 
but  the  invoices  of  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  imported  and  entered 
according  to  its  provisions,  are  subjected  exclusively  to  the  judgment  of 
the  collector;  and  if  he  is  dissatisfied  with  such  invoices,  the  power  is  giv- 
en to  him  to  order  an  appraisement,  or,  in  case  the  owner  or  consignee 
desires  it,  he  is  required  to  call  in  two  merchants,  to  be  chosen  by  the 
party  and  the  collector,  to  make,  under  oath,  the  necessary  appraisement, 
on  which  duties  may  be  demanded.    But,  by  the  act  of  1823,  the  w  hole  of 
this  system  was  abrogated  ;  and  by  the  ICth  section  of  that  act  it  is  enact- 
ed, u  that,  for  the  appraisement  of  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise,  required 
by  this  or  any  other  act  concerning  imports  and  tonnage,  the  President  of 
the  United  States  shall,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senates- 
appoint,  in  each  of  the  ports  of  Boston,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  Balti- 
more, Charleston,  Savannah,  and  New  Orleans,  two  persons  well  qualified 
to  perform  that  duty,  who,  before  they  enter  thereon,  shall  severally  make 
oath  diligently  and  faithfully  to  examine  and  inspect  such  goods,  wares, 
or  merchandise,  as  the  collector  may  direct,  and  truly  to  report,  to  the 
best  of  their  knowledge  and  belief,  the  true  value  thereof,  according  to 
the  provisions  of  the  5th  section  of  this  act."    Further  provisions  were 
made  by  the  act  of  1S2S,  respecting  the  duties  of  the  appraisers  and  of 
the  collector,  as  to  the  mode  of  estimating  charges  to  be  added  to 
the  original  cost  of  the  goods,  on  which  the  duties  should  be  calculated  ; 
and,  by  the  act  of  1830,  it  is  declared  that  u  no  goods  liable  to  be  inspected 
or  appraised  shall  be  delivered  from  the  custody  of  the  officers  of  the  cus- 
toms until  the  same  shall  have  been  inspected  or  appraised,  or  until  the 
packages  sent  to  be  inspected  or  appraised  shall  be  found  correctly  and 
fairly  invoiced  and  put  up,  and  so  reported  to  the  collector."     And  final- 
ly, by  the  act  of  14th  July,  1832,  section  7,  it  is  made  the  duty  of  the  col- 
lector, where  an  ad  valorem  rate  of  duty  is  imposed  on  any  goods,  wares,, 
and  merchandise,  imported  into  the  United  States,  to  cause  the  actual  val- 
ue thereof,  at  the  time  purchased,  and  the  place  from  which  they  were  im- 
ported into  the  United  States,  to  be  appraised."     This  duty  on  the  col- 
lector is  imperative,  and  therefore  it  would  seem  to  be  unreasonable  to 
allow  any  negligence  to  perform  it,  on  his  part,  to  operate  to  the  prejudice 
of  the  importer,  who  subjects  his  goods  to  the  full  and  entire  operation  of 
the  laws.    The  collector  may,  if  he  is  dissatisfied  with  the  appraisement 
of  the  regular  appraisers,  call  in  the  aid  of  reputable  merchants,  under  par- 
ticular restrictions,  to  reappraise  the  goods  ;  but  in  all  cases  where  the 
collector  shall  receive  the  duties,  and  deliver  the  goods  to  the  owner  or 
consignee,  his  satisfaction  with  the  appraisement  must  be  inferred,  and 
the  delivery  of  the  goods,  after  the  payment  of  the  duties,  puts  an  end  to 
his  power  over  them  to  all  intents  and  purposes. 

It  would  be  out  of  place,  and  unnecessary,  in  this  report,  to  give  an  opinions 
seriatim,  on  all  the  views  of  which  these  seizure  cases  instituted  by  Mr.  Hoyt 
are  susceptible  ;  it  will  be  sufficient  to  present  some  general  views  of  the 
questions  arising  out  of  them,  that  it  may  be  seen  by  the  Government  how  far 
the  national  faith,  pledged  by  treaty  to  foreign  Powers,  has  been  compromit- 
ted  by  the  arbitrary  proceedings  of  the  late  collector  of  the  port  of  New 
York,  and  how  far  the  commerce  of  the  country  has  been  deteriorated,  by 


Rep.  No.  669.  85 


means  of  which  the  revenue  derived  from  imposts  has  been  diminished 
pari  passu.  If  it  be  insisted,  in  justification  of  the  collector,  that  the  seiz- 
ures made  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  and  the  suits  commenced  there- 
on, were  founded  on  the  act  of  1799,  it  might  well  be  admitted,  so  far  as 
the  claimants  are  concerned,  that  the  52d  and  66th  sections  of  that  act  are 
in  full  force,  because  the  collector  did  not  comply  with  the  provisions  of 
those  sections,  in  any  particular  whatever,  prior  to  the  seizures,  as  is 
fully  demonstrated  in  the  testimony  of  every  witness  who  has  given  evi- 
dence on  the  subject,  not  even  excepting  that  of  Cairns  himself.  Did  the 
collector,  at  the  time  the  invoices  were  presented  to  him,  signify,  either 
in  writing  or  otherwise,  his  suspicion  that  the  goods  were  invoiced  too 
low,  for  the  purpose  of  defrauding  the  revenue,  which  he  is  required  to 
do  by  the  66th  section,  as  preliminary  to  the  appointment  of  merchants 
to  appraise  the  goods?  He  certainly  did  not.  Was  there  any  suggestion 
of  fraud,  or  intention  of  fraud,  on  the  part  of  the  importers,  either  by  the 
collector,  the  appraisers,  or  any  other  officer  of  the  customs,  at  the  time  these 
goods  were  appraised  and  passed  at  the  custom-house  in  New  York  ?  The 
appraisers  have  testified  expressly  that  there  was  not.  Thus  it  will  be  seen, 
that  the  incipient  steps  to  authorize  a  seizure,  under  the  act  of  1799,  were 
not  taken  in  these  cases,  and,  if  they  had  been,  the  reappraisemen',  to  justify 
a  prosecution,  was  not  made  in  conformity  to  the  52d  section  of  that  act. 

By  section  71  of  the  act  of  1799  it  is  provided,  "  that  in  all  actions, 
suits,  or  informations,  to  be  brought,  where  any  seizures  shall  be  made 
pursuant  t o  this  act,  if  the  property  be  claimed  by  any  persons,  in  every 
such  case  the  onus  probandi 'shall  lay  upon  the  claimant"  to  prove  the  ac- 
tual cost  of  the  goods  at  the  place  whence  imported.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that,  inasmuch  as  these  seizures  were  not  made  in  conformity  with 
the  52d  and  66th  sections  of  the  act  of  1799,  in  any  one  parlicluar,  the 
onus  2>robandi  of  fraud,  or  intention  of  fraud,  would  devolve  upon  the 
Government,  and  not  on  the  claimant. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  presented,  as  applicable  to  the  act  of  1799,  if 
it  were  now  in  full  force,  to  show  that  the  act  has  not  been  complied  with 
by  the  collector,  so  as  to  enable  him  to  sustain  his  seizures  and  prosecutions, 
under  it.  But  since  the  creation  of  the  appraiser's  department  in  the  cus- 
tom-house at  New  York,  and  since  the  act  of  1832,  which  declares  that  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  collector,  in  all  cases  where  an  ad  valorem 
rate  of  duty  on  goods,  wares,  or  merchandise,  imported  into  the  United 
States,  to  cause  the  actual  value  thereof,  at  the  time  purchased,  and  place 
from  which  the  same  shall  have  been  imported,  to  be  appraised,  estimat- 
ed, and  ascertained,  by  the  appraisers  of  the  United  States,  it  is  manifestly 
clear  that  the  system,  as  it  existed  under  the  act  of  1799,  being  wholly 
inconsistent  with  the  subsequent  laws  prescribing  the  manner  of  entering 
and  appraising  foreign  merchandise,  has  become,  to  all  intents  and  purpo- 
ses, totally  null  and  void  ;  for  the  two  systems  could  not  exist  together, 
and  therefore  the  new  law  takes  precedence  of  the  old.  If  these  premi- 
ses be  correct,  (and  there  seems  to  be  no  legal  ground  on  which  they  can 
be  controverted,)  it  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  as  all  goods 
must,  of  necessity,  undergo  the  examination  and  valuation  of  the  ap- 
praisers, for  the  purpose  of  fixing  on  them  a  proper  standard  of  value,  or 
ascertaining  their  actual  cost  at  the  place  whence  imported,  and  as  the  col- 
lector, to  whom  the  appraisement  is  required  to  be  reported  by  law,  before 
*the  goods  are  passed,  must  be  satisfied  with  the  accuracy  of  such  appraise- 


S6 


Rep.  No.  669. 


mcnf,  no  seizure  of  goods,  of  any  description  whatever,  can  be  made  after 
they  shall  have  been  fairly  submitted  for  appraisement,  with  or  without  in- 
voice, and  are  regularly  passed,  the  duties  paid,  and  the  permit  of  the  collec- 
tor given  to  the  owner  or  consignee  to  receive  the  goods  from  the  public 
stores,  which  are  accordingly  delivered  under  such  permit,  on  the  ground 
that  they  were  invoiced  too  low,  or  under  any  other  allegation  touching  the 
entry  of  the  goods  in  any  respect  whatever.  If  it  were  otherwise,  it  is 
evident  that  there  would  be  no  security  for  property  ;  and  the  foreign  im- 
porter, after  having  fulfilled  all  the  requirements  of  our  laws,  and  having 
transferred  his  goods  to  such  places  as  he  might  think  fit,  for  the  supply  or 
consumption  of  the  country,  would,  at  no  subsequent  time,  be  safe  in  the  cus- 
tody of  his  goods,  but,  under  any  frivolous  pretext  which  the  collector  of  the 
port  at  which  they  were  entered  and  passed  might  invent  or  allege,  by  him- 
self or  other  officers  of  customs,  his  goods  would  be  subject  to  arbitrary  seiz- 
ure and  prosecution,  under  a  reappraisement,  made,  not  at  the  port  where 
they  were  entered  by  the  lawful  appraisers,  but  by  merchants  and  custom- 
house officers  at  the  place  where  they  might  be  found  ;  and  thus  all  confi- 
fidence  in  our  laws,  and  all  security  in  their  execution  would,  be  destroyed> 
and  to  the  same  extent  the  commerce  of  the  country  would  be  diminished. 
Of  what  avail  is  it  that  revenue  laws  are  enacted,  prescribing,  in  detail,  the 
mode  of  entering  goods  imported  into  the  United  States,  of  examining 
and  appraising  them,  by  men  selected  and  appointed  for  the  purpose,  and 
thereby  ascertaining  the  precise  amount  of  duties  to  be  paid  upon  them,  if, 
after  this  scrutiny  has  been  had,  according  to  our  own  laws,  under  the  su- 
pervision of  our  own  officers,  and  the  full  amount  of  duties  demanded  paid, 
the  importer  is  still  left  at  the  mercy  of  the  collector,  and  his  goods  liable 
to  seizure  and  condemnation,  for  the  very  absurd  reason  that  the  officers 
of  the  customs,  to  whom  the  dutyof  affixing  a  fair  valuation  on  them  belonged, 
have  been  faithless  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty,  and  have  permitted, 
the  goods  to  pass  at  a  rate  below  the  standard  value  at  the  place  whence 
imported  ?  Such  vexations  would  put  an  end  to  foreign  commerce,  be- 
cause our  own  laws  would  furnish  no  guaranty  to  importers  of  foreign 
merchandise,  after  they  shall  have  been  complied*  with  in  every  particular, 
if  the  defect  of  judgment  or  the  neglect  of  duty  on  the  part  of  the  offi- 
cers of  the  Government  is  deemed  a  sufficient  cause  for  an  allegation  of 
fraud  on  the  importer,  who  has  in  no  manner  interfered  with  or  partici- 
pated in  the  wrong  which  may  have  been  done  to  the  Government  by  its 
own  officers,  over  whose  actions  no  such  importer  can  exercise  any  control 
whatever.  It  is  believed  that  in  no  civilized  country  known  to  the  com- 
mercial world  is  such  a  principle  recognised  5  and  no  example  can  be  found, 
in  our  commercial  relations  with  other  countries,  where  au  American  citi- 
zen, having  complied  with  the  laws  of  that  country,  has  been,  at  a  future- 
day,  deprived  of  his  property,  under  an  allegation  that  the  officers  of  that 
country  were  deficient  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties,  and  permitted  the 
goods  to  pass  the  custom-house  at  lower  rates  of  duty  than  they  ought  to 
have  paid,  according  to  subsequent  discoveries  or  valuations,  ascertained 
or  made  by  the  defaulting  officers.  There  is,  in  England,  a  limitation  on 
the  seizure  even  of  smuggled  or  concealed  goods  ;  but  it  was  never  heard 
of,  in  that  country.,  that  goods  regularly  passed  at  any  custom-house  were 
liable  to  seizure  and  condemnation,  in  the  hands  of  the  owner  or  any  other 
person  to  whom  they  may  have  been  consigned  or  sold,  at  any  time  there- 
after. 


Rep.  No.  669.  87 


All  our  commercial  treaties  with  foreign  nations  are  based  on  stipula- 
tions of  the  most  exact  reciprocity  ;  and  this  Government,  in  all  those  trea- 
ties, guaranties  to  the  foreign  importer  perfect  security  in  his  property  im- 
ported into  the  United  States, after  he  shall  have  submitted  himself  to  the  laws 
of  this  country.  Can  it  be  said  that  this  stipulation  is  executed  in  good 
faith,  if,  after  the  foreign  importer  has  thus  submitted  himself  and  his  prop- 
erty to  our  laws,  his  goods  may  nevertheless  be  taken  possession  of, 
seized,  and  condemned,  under  new  valuations,  or  other  evidence  of  their 
value,  professed  to  have  been  obtained  long  after  they  have  passed  into  the 
hands  of  the  owner  or  consignee,  in  conformity  with  all  the  provisions  of 
our  laws  relating  to  imposts  ?  Such  a  proceeding  must  be  regarded  as 
wholly  unauthorized  by  the  existing  laws  of  this  country,  and  if  permitted 
to  be  carried  into  effect,  and  become  a  precedent  for  the  future  action  of 
the  Government,  involves  a  direct  and  palpable  violation  of  our  treaty  ob- 
ligations with  foreign  countries,  which  cannot  fail  in  the  end  to  affix  a  stain 
on  our  national  character.  No  country  can  long  maintain  commercial  re- 
lations with  the  jest  of  the  world  which  is  liable  to  the  charge  of  bad  faith 
in  the  observance  of  its  treaty  stipulations,  for  it  is  on  the  binding  obliga- 
tions of  these  that  confidence  is  imparted  from  os:e  nation  to  another 
throughout  the  civilized  world.  It  would  therefore  seem  to  be  the  in- 
cumbent duty  of  this  Government  to  apply  a  speedy  and  suitable  corrective 
to  these  interpolations  on  our  laws  and  treaties,  and  thereby  restore  foreign 
commerce  to  its  legitimate  footing. 

The  undersigned,  having  in  a  very  cursory  manner  offered  his  own 
opinion  on  these  extraordinary  seizures  of  foreign  woollens,  made  in  Phil- 
adelphia and  Baltimore  by  Cairns  and  Wasson,  acting  under  the  orders  of 
Jesse  Iloyt,  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  deems  it  a  fit  occasion  to 
incorporate  in  his  report  an  extract  on  the  same  subject  from  the  opinion 
of  the  learned  and  distinguished  jurist,  James  Kent,  the  excellent  and 
much  celebrated  chancellor  of  New  York: 

"  There  would  be  no  security  in  the  purchase  of  goods,  and  no  end  to 
vexation  and  tyranny,  if  goods  are  not  free  from  arbitrary  or  discretionary 
seizure,  when  the  duties  have  been  paid  and  the  goods  fairly  passed 
through  the  Government  officers  into  the  general  mass  of  the  circulating 
commerce  of  the  country.  The  act  of  1799  gives  no  color  for  such  an  act 
or  assumption  of  power.  All  the  powers  conferred  upon  the  collector 
under  the  66th,  67th,  68th,  and  71st  sections  of  the  act  of  1799,  evidently 
apply  only  to  goods  while  in  transitu  and  under  the  control  of  the  custom- 
house department,  and  the  packages  unbroken,  or  if  smuggled  into  the 
country  without  payment  of  duties.  The  right  of  seizure  is  tor  concealed 
goods,  or  goods  suspected  to  be  concealed,  and  which  are  subject  to  duty  ; 
that  is,  cases  where  the  duties  have  not  been  paid.  The  power  of  exam- 
ining invoices,  and  ascertaining  true  entries,  and  the  true  cost  of  goods,  is 
when  the  goods  are  sub  judice,  or  under  the  control  of  the  custom-house  ; 
and  it  is  too  late,  after  the  examinations  are  closed,  and  duties  paid,  and  the 
ordeal  passed,  and  the  goods  delivered  over  into  the  hands  of  the  importer 
or  purchaser  for  commercial  use,  to  go  on  and  seize  on  suspicion.  The 
right  of  action,  or  the  exercise  of  the  tremendous  power  of  seizure  and 
search,  and  violating  domicil,  only  applies  either  to  goods  smuggled  or 
concealed,  or  suspected  to  be  so,  without  payment  of  duties,  or  while  the 
goods  are  still  under  the  hands  of  the  collector  in  packages.    I  do  not  see 


88 


Rep.  No.  669. 


any  thins;  in  either  the  67th,  68th,  or  71st  sections  of  the  act  of  1799,  that 
gives  the  inquisitorial  power,  except  in  the  two  cases  I  have  mentioned." 

Passing  from  the  legal  question  to  the  great  injustice  and  oppression  of 
these  seizures,  it  may  be  remarked  that,  independent  of  the  sweeping, 
undefined,  uncertain,  and  false  affidavits  of  Cairns  and  Wasson,  under 
which  they  were  made,  which  is  of  itself  sufficient  to  condemn  the  whole 
proceeding,  the  impossibility  of  arriving  at  any  just  appraisement  of  goods 
which  had  so  long  been  in  the  country,  and  passed  through  the  custom- 
house at  New  York,  must  strike  every  wne  with  peculiar  force.  The 
ever-varying  transmutation  of  prices,  both  in  the  foreign  and  domestic 
markets,  would  seem  to  render  it  almost  impossible  for  the  most  skilful 
and  experienced  merchant  to  affix  a  fair  valuation  on  goods  imported  into 
the  United  States  six  or  twelve  months  after  they  have  been  regularly 
appraised  and  delivered  to  the  owner  or  consignee.  It  is  a  fact  well 
known  to  the  commercial  community,  that  the  standard  of  value  at  which 
foreign  woollens  are  estimated  is  not  the  same  in  any  two  ports  of  the 
United  States;  but  in  each  it  is  fixed  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  offi- 
cers of  the  customs  and  importing  merchants,  drawn  from  their  own  busi- 
ness and  experience  in  foreign  markets.  In  New  York  it  is  one  thing, 
in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  another,  founded  on  a  very  different  esti- 
mate of  the  price  of  such  goods  in  the  markets  of  the  country  from  whence 
they  are  imported  ;  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  every  other  city  into 
which  foreign  woollens  are  brought. 

The  woollens  seized  in  Philadelphia,  it  appears  by  the  evidence,  were 
reappraised  by  an  inspector  of  the  custom-house  in  New  York  and  two 
Government  appraisers  of  Philadelphia,  assisted  by  certain  selected  mer- 
chants, being  small  dealers  in  woollen  goods,  who  imported  into  Philadel- 
phia, the  highest,  not  more  than  fifteen  packages  per  annum,  and  the  others 
a  still  smaller  amount,  and  some  of  them  did  not  import  at  all.  The  ap- 
praisement was  made  in  private,  and  concealed  from  the  claimants  until 
the  trial.  This  appraisement  was  deemed  sufficient,  under  the  71st  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  1799,  to  throw  the  onus  probandi  on  the  claimant,  to  show 
the  actual  cost  of  the  goods  in  England  ;  and  the  appraisement  of  the  Gov- 
ernment appraisers  at  the  New  York  custom-house,  and  of  nine  of  the 
largest  and  oldest  importing  merchants  of  woollens  in  New  York  and 
Philadelphia,  were  ruled  out  as  insufficient  to  relieve  the  claimant  from 
the  necessity  of  resorting  to  the  manufacturer  in  England  to  prove  the  ac- 
tual cost  of  the  goods;  and,  on  an  application  for  a  commission  to  obtain 
such  proof,  the  claimants  were  informed  that  time  could  not  be  allowed 
them  for  that  purpose.  The  cases  in  Baltimore  were  conducted  in  a  sim- 
ilar manner,  and  on  similar  principles.  Under  these  circumstances,  two 
cases  in  the  district  court  of  Pennsylvania  were  tried,  and  verdicts  ren- 
dered against  the  claimants,  and  two  others  in  Baltimore,  in  the  district 
court  of  Maryland.  These  cases  are  still  pending  in  the  circuit  courts  of 
Pennsylvania  and  Maryland,  resting  on  legal  questions  reserved  at  the 
trials  in  the  district  courts.  Mr.  Hoyt,  for  the  purpose  of  justifying  his 
course  in  making  indiscriminate  seizures  of  all  foreign  woollens  imported 
into  New  York  by  foreign  importers,  makes  the  broad  allegation,  in  his 
correspondence  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  that  it  was,  and  had 
been,  the  uniform  practice  of  these  importers  of  woollens,  for  a  number  of 
years  past,  to  invoice  their  goods  at  prices  below  their  actual  cost  or  value, 
and  thereby  avoid  the  payment  ol  the  full  amount  of  duties  which  ought  to 


Rep.  No.  669. 


89 


have  accrued  on  such  importations.  It  has  already  been  shown  that  he 
utterly  failed  to  make  good  these  alleged  frauds  before  the  juries  in  the 
district  court  of  New  York,  and  that  verdicts  for  the  claimants  had  been 
given  in  nearly  all  the  cases  instituted  in  that  court.  In  addition  to  this 
striking  fact,  that  the  conduct  of  these  foreign  importers  had  been  grossly 
misrepresented  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  may  be  added  the  following  opinion,  given 
under  oath  by  the  principal  appraisers  and  their  assistants  at  the  port  of 
New  York  : 

New  York,  June  9,  1841. 

Gentlemen  :  The  undersigned,  late  principal  appraisers  of  the  customs 
for  the  port  and  district  of  New  York,  beg  leave  to  submit  the  following 
report,  and  respectfully  solicit  that  it  may  be  considered  as  a  part  of  their 
testimony,  viz  : 

From  Ions  and  careful  observations  and  examinations  of  merchandise  at 
the  custom-house,  they  are  fully  satisfied  that  there  have  been  no  frauds  of 
any  consequence  practised  on  the  revenue  by  the  undervaluation  of  cloths 
and  cassimeres  at  their  entry.  Because  there  has  been,  in  all  English 
fabrics  of  that  kind,  a  great  uniformity  in  value  on  the  invoice  prices,  when 
of  similar  quality,  whether  imported  by  American  or  foreign  merchants. 
Because  most  of  the  woollens,  particularly  the  middling  and  lower  quali- 
ties, have  not  been  subjected  to  duties  according  to  invoice  value,  but 
have  in  most  cases  been  subjected  to  increased  duties  through  prejudice, 
caprice,  or  false  valuation,  by  those  acting  as  appraisers,  who  were  not  the 
legal  appraisers  of  the  New  York  custom-house.  Because  there  has  been 
no  motive  to  undervalue  the  goods  on  invoice,  since  it  was  not  taken  as 
the  criterion  of  value  on  which  the  duties  were  to  be  computed,  and  con- 
sequently the  merchants  on  the  other  side  of  the  water  could  not  consider 
their  invoices  as  a  guide  to  the  duties  to  be  imposed  here.  Because  neither 
in  our  official  capacity  nor  otherwise  have  complaints  been  made  of  any  in- 
stances of  suspected  undervaluation,  either  by  importers  or  by  persons 
engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  domestic  goods ;  and,  had  there  been  any 
such  undervaluation,  the  vigilance  of  rivalry  and  promptings  of  interest 
would  have  made  the  facts  known.  Because,  in  the  sales  of  cloths  and 
cassimeres,  where  they  have  been  made  after  seizure,  by  consent  of  par- 
ties and  without  prejudice,  they  have  rarely  brought  the  invoice  cost  and 
charges,  even  when  made  under  the  most  favorable  circumstances  ;  and, 
in  a  large  majority  of  the  cases,  they  have  not  brought  to  exceed  two- 
thirds  of  the  custom-house  valuation.  That  there  were  frauds  by  smug- 
gling,  committed  during  the  last  term  of  Swartwout's  incumbency,  there 
cannot  be  a  doubt;  but  these  were  brought  about  by  collusion  of  officers 
of  the  customs  with  certain  importers,  and  whether  by  undervaluation  or 
otherwise,  the  undersigned,  not  having  seen  the  goods,  are  unable  to  say. 

We  have  confined  these  remarks  to  cloths  and  cassimeres,  solely  be- 
cause no  allegations  of  frauds  in  any  other  descriptions  of  merchandise  or 
manufactures  have  ever  been  made  by  the  American  manufacturers,  to  our 
knowledge  ;  but  it  is  due  to  the  public  to  state,  and  we  do  it  with  great 
deference  and  respect,  that,  among  the  numerous  cases  of  evasions  and 
frauds  that  came  under  our  observations  when  acting  as  appraisers  of  the 
customs,  whether  by  false  or  undervaluation,  or  otherwise,  much  the 


90 


Rep.  No.  669. 


greatest  proportion,  both  in  numbers  and  amount,  were  of  goods  other 
than  those  in  which  wool  was  a  component  part. 

JEROMUS  JOHNSON, 
A.  B.  VANDERPOOL, 
A.  B.  MEAD, 
Late  principal  appraisers  of  theporl  of  New  York, 
To  the  Hon.  the  Investigating  Commissioners 

Now  sitting  at  the  City  Hotel. 

December  13,  1841. 
Sir  :  The  annexed  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  to  the  editor  of  the  Ex- 
press in  June  last,  by  the  late  assistant  appraisers,  to  which  my  signature 
is  attached,  which  was  published  about  the  time  it  was  written,  1  desire 
may  be  taken  and  considered  as  a  part  of  my  testimony,  delivered  under 
oath,  before  the  late  board  of  commissioners,  the  same  having  been  acci- 
dentally omitted  in  rendering  my  answers  to  the  interrogatories  furnished 
to  me  bv  the  board. 

EDGAR  TRIPLER. 
To  the  Hon.  George  Poin dexter,  Chairman,  fyc. 

To  the  Editors  of  the  Express  : 

Gentleman:  The  undersigned,  having  read  the  recent  statements  of 
the  late  appraisers  of  the  port  of  New  York  in  relation  to  the  woollens 
department,  and  having  been  for  a  long  time  employed  in  that  department, 
as  an  act  of  justice  to  ourselves  and  to  them,  deem  it  proper  to  say  that 
we  fully  concur  in  those  statements. 

The  late  appraisers  might  have  gone  further,  and  added,  that  not  only 
were  the  appraisements  of  the  proper  and  legal  appraisers  nullified,  but  in 
many  instances  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  late  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  set 
aside  appraisements,  made  legally  and  illegally,  by  his  own  direct  assump- 
tion and  command. 

The  signature  of  the  appraisers  was  obtained,  as  a  matter  of  form,  after 
the  examinations  had  taken  place  by  the  other  officers,  just  as  all  such 
papers  are  signed  now  at  the  custom-house. 

The  fiaud  consisted  in  using  those  names  as  evidence  without  consult- 
ing those  who  signed  the  papers  as  to  the  propriety  of  the  seizure.  In 
this  way  the  appraisers  were  made  to  sanction  seizures,  apparently,  when 
they  had  no  reason  to  suspect  fraud,  and  no  information  on  the  subject 
till  the  case  came  into  court. 

JEREMIAH  LOUNSBERRY, 
Late  Assistant  appraiser  of  the  Woollens  Loft, 

ABRAHAM  VANDERPOEL, 

Late  Clerk  on  the  Woollens  Loft, 
EDGAR  TRIPLER, 
Late  and  now  Clerk  on  the  Woollens  Loft, 

This  evidence,  given  by  impartial  men,  whose  duties  made  it  incum- 
bent on  them  to  scrutinize,  examine,  and  appraise  all  woollen  goods 
brought  into  the  port  of  New  York,  is  abundantly  sufficient  to  stamp  as 
false  the  charge  of  fraud,  or  intention  of  fraud,  on  the  foreign  importers, 
who  have  suffered  such  immense  losses  by  the  arbitrary  and  illegal  pro- 


Rep.  No.  669.  91 


ceeciings  of  Mr.  Hoyt.  When  called  on  for  evidence  on  which  his 
opinion  was  founded,  charging  a  general  system  of  fraudulent  importations 
by  means  of  invoices  at  a  lower  rate  than  the  market  value  of  the  goods 
at  the  place  whence  imported,  he  relies  on  the  case  of  Bottomly,  here- 
tofore noticed,  where  the  goods  were  condemned  in  Boston  on  the  state- 
ment of  James  Campbell,  not  given  under  oath,  but  admitted  as  testimony 
by  the  judge,  at  a  time  when  the  infamy  of  Campbell  was  so  well  estab- 
lished in  New  York  that  even  Mr.  Hoyt  did  not  dare  to  introduce  him  as 
a  witness  in  the  courts  of  that  city.  He  also  makes  frequent  reference  to 
the  case  of  Wood,  in  which  a  conviction  of  the  defendant  was  obtained  on 
the  evidence  of  a  single  witness,  George  R.  Ives,  who  implicated  other 
importers  by  expressions  which  he  ascribed  to  Wood,  the  defendant,  which, 
being  at  best  hearsay  testimony,  involving  the  character  of  other  persons, 
ought  not  to  have  been  admitted  in  the  trial.  But  this  witness,  who  was 
called  by  Mr.  Hoyt  in  almost  every  case  of  seizure  of  foreign  woollens 
instituted  by  him,  stands  self-convicted,  in  two  separate  affidavits  made  by 
him  before  the  commissioners,  of  wilful  and  corrupt  perjury.  On  such 
testimony  Mr.  Hoyt  rests  his  denunciations  of  foreign  importers,  while  it 
stands  contradicted  in  all  its  parts  by  the  lawful  appraisers,  whosp  oppor- 
tunities of  information  on  the  subject  entitle  them  to  speak  of  their  own 
knowledge,  and  by  the  verdicts  uniformly  rendered  against  the  collector, 
by  impartial  juries  of  skilful  and  well-informed  merchants,  in  the  district 
court  of  New  York.  Such  are  the  flimsy  pretexts  resorted  to  by  the  col- 
lector to  cover  his  corrupt  and  unfounded  persecution  of  foreign  importers, 
the  effect  of  which  was  seen  and  felt  in  the  reduced  amount  of  foreign 
importations  into  New  York,  and  the  consequent  diminution  of  the  public 
revenue  derived  from  that  source.  Mr.  Hoyt  commenced  his  operations, 
as  he  stated  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  protect  the  American 
merchant  from  being  undersold  in  the  market  by  means  of  fraudulent  im- 
portations, and  the  revenue  from  deterioration  by  undervaluations.  These 
merchants  were  put  on  juries,  where  they  might,  by  their  verdicts,  pro- 
tect themselves,  if  their  business  had  sustained  any  injury  from  the  cause 
assigned  by  the  collector  ;  but  the  result  of  their  verdicts  proved  that  they 
entertained  far  different  opinions  of  their  own  interests  than  those  ex- 
pressed by  Mr.  Hoyt,  who  had  taken  them  under  his  protection.  It  be- 
came necessary  for  the  collector,  under  this  state  of  things,  to  prevent,  if 
possible,  these  silly  merchants,  who  did  not  know  how  to  protect  them- 
selves from  these  fraudulent  importers,  being  summoned  by  the  marshal 
to  serve  on  juries  in  seizure  cases.  He  accordingly  made  frequent  and 
earnest  appeals,  both  to  the  Secretary  and  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  to 
change  the  mode  of  summoning  juries,  by  giving  suitable  instructions  for 
that  purpose  to  the  marshals.  These  instructions  (see  Appendix  J)  were 
issued  by  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  on  the  27th  day  of  February,  1840  ; 
and  constitute  a  most  singular  portion  of  the  judicial  history  of  the  country, 
and  therefore  it  may  be  proper  to  notice  them  in  connexion  with  the  ex- 
traordinary proceedings  of  Mr.  Hoyt  against  foreign  importers,  whose 
goods  he  caused  to  be  seized  and  sought  to  condemn  by  means  so  unpre- 
cedented, and  so  disgraceful  to  the  character  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States.  The  entire  correspondence  between  the  collector  and 
the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  is  annexed  to  this  report,  and  referred  to,  to 
show  the  nature  of  the  complaints  of  the  collector,  and  the  remedy  applied 


92 


Rep.  No.  G99. 


at  his  instance  by  the  Solicitor.  But  a  few  extracts  from  this  correspond- 
ence are  inserted,  lor  the  purpose  of  directing  the  attention  of  the  Gov- 
ernment to  the  material  parts  of  it,  in  relation  to  the  manner  of  summoning 
juries.  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Solicitor,  (see  Appendix  J,) 
under  date  of  22d  February,  1840,  enters  fully  into  the  causes  which  he 
alleges  have  operated  to  defeat  so  large  a  proportion  of  his  seizure  cases. 
Among  other  things  he  says  :  "  We  have  been  heretofore  unfortunate  in 
the  selection  of  juries  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States.  They  are  not 
drawn,  as  is  the  practice  in  other  courts,  but  are  selected  by  the  marshal 
from  what  sources  he  pleases  ;  and  hitherto  large  numbers  of  jurors  have 
been  taken  from  the  mercantile  classes,  against  which  course  I  have  re- 
monstrated, so  far  forth  as  delicacy  would  permit  me  to  do,  in  a  matter  in- 
volving the  manner  in  which  a  public  officer  of  great  responsibility  dis- 
charged his  public  duty."  He  ascribes  the  refusal  of  the  marshal  to 
comply  with  his  modest  request  to  change  the  mode  of  summoning  jurors 
to  mercenary  causes.  He  says  :  "  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
officers  of  Government  would  naturally  incline  in  feeling  ivith  the  United 
States  ;  but  in  all  seizure  cases  they  derive  about  the  same  benefit  from  a 
seizure,  whether  the  goods  are  condemned  or  acquitted."  In  various 
other  letters  of  Mr.  Hoyt  to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  he  urges  the 
necessity  of  excluding  merchants,  and  the  trading  classes  generally,  from 
serving  on  juries  in  cases  of  prosecutions  or  alleged  violations  of  the 
revenue  laws.  He  states,  emphatically,  that  he  had  lost  all  confidence  in 
these  classes,  and  despairs  of  condemning  goods  put  under  seizure,  if  the 
marshal  is  permitted  to  put  them  on  his  panel  of  jurors  for  the  District 
court  of  the  United  States.  The  Solicitor  reciprocates  the  feelings  and 
opinions  of  the  collector  on  the  subject,  and  says  to  him  :  u  I  will  thank 
you  for  a  full  and  frank  expression  of  your  views,  and  shall  at  all  times  be 
happy  to  receive  any  remark  upon  the  means  of  improvement  which  your 
experience  may  suggest  to  you  as  worthy  of  consideration.  /  am  ex- 
tremely anxious  to  adopt  a  course  by  which  a  recovery  in  suits  by  the 
United  States  shall  be  more  certain.'''' 

This  course  will  be  found  in  the  letter  of  the  Solicitor  to  the  marshal 
of  the  southern  district  of  New  York,  prescribing  his  duty  in  the  future 
selection  of  jurors.  After  some  general  remarks,  touching  the  character 
of  persons  to  be  summoned  on  juries,  he  instructs  the  marshal  as  follows  : 

In  making  up  a  jury,  you  have  the  whole  range  of  your  district,  em- 
bracing a  dense  population  of  intelligent,  well-informed  men,  of  a  high 
order  of  integrity.  Whether  selected  from  within  the  city  or  without  is 
a  matter  of  little  moment,  so  far  as  expense  is  concerned,  when  compared 
with  the  importance  of  having  an  impartial  body,  unexceptionable  either 
to  plaintiff  or  defendant.  You  w«l  have  perceived  that  verdicts  have 
been  repeatedly  rendered  against  the  United  States,  in  prosecutions  for 
breaches  of  the  revenue  laws,  on  proof  of  facts  that,  in  most  other  places 
than  New  York,  would  have  ensured  a  verdict  in  its  favor.  These  things 
are  injurious  to  a  well-regulated  trade.  They  encourage  irregular  traffic 
at  the  expense  of  fair  business  men,  and  tend  to  give  rogues  an  undue 
advantage  over  the  honorable  importer.  I  am  aware  that  it  is  not  wholly 
in  your  power  to  correct  the  existing  evils  which  have  grown  out  of  great 
former  laxity  in  revenue  officers  at  New  York,  but  I  trust  you  will  cor- 
dially co-operate  with  the  present  officers  in  endeavoring  to  produce  a 
healthy  moral  sentiment  upon  the  subject  of  enforcing  the  revenue  laws." 


Rep.  No.  669. 


93 


M  There  are  few  persons  who  have  not  often  seen  honest  men  err  in  judg- 
ment, in  consequence  of  influences  from  which  they,  at  the  time,  believe 
themselves  entirely  free.  It  imputes  nothing  against  the  honor  of  New  York 
merchants  to  suppose  that,  in  this  respect,  they  are  subject  to  the  like 
imperfections  which  belong  to  other  men.  I  have  therefore  to  request 
you  to  bear  these  general  observations  in  mind,  when  selecting  jurors  for 
the  trial  of  revenue  cases,  and  endeavor  to  select  impartial,  capable  men, 
who  are  totally  disconnected  with  trade  and  all  its  influences,  such  as  you 
would  willingly  trust  to  arbitrate  a  case  of  your  own  of  equal  magnitude 
and  importance.  Should  you  succeed,  general  confidence  wilt  attend 
their  verdicts,  and  complaint  that  the  revenue  law  at  New  York  is  a  dif- 
ferent thing  from  what  it  is  in  other  places  will  be  less  frequent.  Possi- 
bly men  who,  for  a  long  time,  have  found  their  profits  in  frauds  upon  the 
custom  house,  may  prove  clamorous,  but  it  will  be  noise  without  either 
just  cause  or  honest  sympathy,  because  the  whole  nation  knows  that  con- 
fidence may  well  be  placed  in  the  integrity  and  judgment  of  honest  far- 
mers  and  mechanics,  and  that  it  is  not  less  proper  for  the  United  States 
to  seek  a  fair  trial  than  for  a  private  citizen.  This  is  all  I  desire  to  ac- 
com  plish." 

This  is  the  course  which  the  Solicitor  has  adopted  to  render  a  recovery 
in  suits  by  the  United  States  more  certain.  It  was  the  result  of  the  uni- 
ted counsels  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  and  Mat- 
thew Birchard,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  deserves 
to  be  perpetuated  for  the  benefit  of  posterity.  Whoever  heard  before  of 
a  system  of  empanelling  jurois,  under  which  entire  classes  of  the  commu- 
nity are  excluded,  and  rendered  non-jurors,  without  the  commission  of 
crime,  for  no  other  reason  than  to  render  a  "  recovery  in  suits  by  the 
United  States  more  certain?"  The  Solicitor,  aware  of  the  gross  libel 
which  his  circular  cast  on  the  mercantile  community,  first  flatters,  and 
then  attempts  to  apologize  for  their  exclusion  as  unfit  and  unworthy  to 
serve  on  juries  in  revenue  cases.  He  sympathizes  with  Mr.  Hoyt  in  the 
numerous  verdicts  which  have  been  rendered  against  the  United  States 
under  the  wanton  seizures  made  by  him,  without  any  justifiable  cause, 
and  calls  the  attention  of  the  marshal  to  these  verdicts,  as  a  sufficient  rea- 
son for  packing  the  juries  who  might  be  summoned  in  future  cases.  He 
charges  on  the  trading  community  in  the  city  of  New  York  the  high  crime 
of  rendering  verdicts  against  the  United  States  on  a  state  of  facts  which, 
in  any  other  place,  would  ensure  a  verdict  in  their  favor  ;  and,  by  way  of 
palliative,  he  professes  the  greatest  respect  for  that  class  of  citizens,  and 
a  sincere  desire  to  arrest  the  progress  of  a  irregular  traffic  at  the  expense 
of  fair  business  men  and  honest  importers."  And  jet  he  is  unwilling  to 
trust  these  fair  business  men  and  honest  importers  with  the  detection  and 
punishment  of  rogues,  who  interfere  with  the  regular  course  of  trade,  to 
the  prejudice  of  their  own  business  and  the  injury  of  their  own  interests, 
which  he  is  determined  to  protect  and  defend,  by  prohibiting  these  much- 
injured  men  from  serving  on  juries  in  revenue  cases,  where  they  might  be- 
come the  protectors  of  their  own  interests,  if,  in  point  of  fact,  they  had 
sustained  any  injury,  at  the  hands  of  foreign  importers,  by  means  of  false 
invoices  or  evasions  of  the  revenue  laws.  He  apologizes  to  these  objects 
of  his  protection  by  telling  them  that  he  has  often  seen  honest  men  err 
in  judgment,  in  consequence  of  influences  from  which  they  at  all  times 
believe  themselves  entirely  free,  and  assures  them  that  he  means  to  im- 


94 


Rep.  No.  669. 


pute  nothing  against  the  honor  of  the  New  York  merchants,  further  than 
to  say,  that  they  are  not  fit  to  serve  on  juries  in  revenue  cases.  He  then 
proceeds  to  give  them  his  final  reason  for  this  determination,  which  is 
certainly  paying  a  high  compliment  to  the  integrity  of  the  entire  class  of 
merchants  in  the  city  of  New  York.  He  informs  them,  in  very  courteous 
terms,  that  "  men  who,  for  a  long  time,  have  found  their  profits  in  frauds 
upo-n  the  custom-house  may  prove  clamorous,  but  it  will  be  noise  without 
just  cause  or  honest  sympathy,  because  the  whole  nation  knows  that  con- 
fidence may  be  placed  in  the  integrity  and  judgment  of  honest  farmers 
and  mechanics  ;"  and,  by  unavoidable  implication,  he  infers  that  the  like 
confidence  oue;ht  not  to  be  reposed  in  the  integrity  and  judgment  of  mer- 
chants. It  will  not  be  denied  that  confidence  may  be  reposed  in  honest 
farmers  and  mechanics,  in  the  discharge  of  every  duty  which  they  may 
be  called  upon  to  perform,  so  far  as  their  means  of  information  will  ena- 
ble them  to  discharge  such  duty  ;  but  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  the  class 
of  citizens  referred  to  are  less  familiar  with  the  operation  of  the  revenue 
laws,  and  the  usages  of  commercial  men,  than  those  whose  business  it  is, 
from  day  to  day,  to  mingle  in  the  transactions  of  commerce  at  the  custom- 
house. Let  it  be  supposed  that  the  merchants  had  fulfilled  all  the  expec- 
tations of  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  rendering  verdicts  for  the  United  States  in  his  sei- 
zure cases,  can  it  be  believed  for  a  moment  that  he  would  have  tampered 
with  the  marshal  to  exclude  them  from  juries  in  revenue  cases,  or  that 
the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  would  have  given  an  order  to  that  effect  ? 
Assuredly  not.  We  should  then,  in  all  probability,  have  seen  the  col- 
lector imploring  the  Solicitor  o/  the  Treasury  to  instruct  the  marshal  to 
confine  himself  to  that  class,  and  not  to  summon  on  juries  u  honest  farmers 
and  ?}iechanics,"  for  the  plain  reason  that  they  had  no  knowledge  on  the 
subjects  which  would  be  brought  before  them.  In  such  a  case  the  Solici- 
tor would  undoubtedly  have  complied  with  the  wishes  of  the  collector, 
in  order  to  render  a  u  recovery  in  suits  by  the  United  States  more  certain." 

To  exclude  either  or  any  class  of  the  community,  who  are  competent 
jurors,  from  being  summoned  by  the  marshal  on  his  panel,  is  a  usurpa- 
tion of  power  on  the  part  of  the  Executive  Government,  unprecedented 
in  the  judicial  proceedings  of  this  country,  which  can  be  traced  to  no 
other  motive  than  gross  partiality  and  corruption. 

This  circular  from  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  was  found,  in  a  very 
short  time  after  it  issued,  to  be  productive  of  mischievous  consequences  ; 
and  to  remedy  the  evil,  Congress,  by  an  act  passed  on  the  20th  day  of 
July,  1840,  made  a  general  provision,  defining  the  qualifications  of  jurors 
to  be  summoned  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  and  directed  that  they 
should  be  designated  by  ballot  or  lot,  according  to  such  rules  and  regula- 
tions as  might  be  in  existence  in  each  State,  and  to  conform  the  same  to 
any  change  which  may  be  hereafter  adopted  by  the  Legislatures  of  the 
respective  States.  This  act  was  well  calculated  to  secure  to  parties  liti- 
gant, in  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  fair  and  impartial  juries  on  the 
trial  of  their  causes.  But,  for  reasons  which  have  not  been  given,  a 
Senator  from  Pennsylvania,  at  the  succeeding  session  of  Congress,  intro- 
duced a  bill  to  modify  the  general  law,  or  suspend  its  operation  in  the 
district  courts  of  Pennsylvania,  for  the  period  of  one  year.  This  bill 
passed  without  discussion,  and,  by  a  suspension  of  the  rules  of  the  Senate, 
was  presented  to  the  President  on  the  3d  of  March,  1841,  and  by  him  ap- 
proved.   It  provides  that,  "  in  and  for  the  districts  of  Pennsylvania,  jurors 


Rep.  No.  669. 


in  said  districts  shall  be  selected,  returned,  and  empanelled,  as  if  the  said 
act  [being  the  act  of  July  20th,  1840]  had  not  been  passed."  The  large 
amount  and  number  of  prosecutions  on  seizures  of  woollens  made  in  Phila- 
delphia by  the  procurement  of  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York 
remained  on  the  docket  undecided  at  the  date  of  the  last-mentioned  act, 
suspending  the  operation  of  the  act  of  the  20th  July,  1840.  Only  one  of 
these  cases  had  been  tried  ;  and  it  appears,  from  the  evidence  taken  by  the 
commissioners,  that  the  whole  of  the  jurors  empanelled  in  that  case 
were  either  directly  or  indirectly  interested  in  domestic  manufactures. 
This  could  not  have  happened,  in  all  probability,  if  the  jurors  had  been 
selected  by  ballot  or  lot.  The  result  was  a  verdict  for  the  United  States, 
under  a  most  extraordinary  charge  from  the  district  judge.  The  remain- 
ing cases,  involving  seizures  of  woollen  goods  imported  into  the  United 
States  to  an  amount  reaching  to  about  $150,000,  it  was  supposed  would  be 
tried  in  the  course  of  one  year,  after  the  passage  of  the  suspension  act  ; 
and  the  transaction  throughout  bears  strong  marks  of  having  originated 
with  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  who  was  deeply  interested  in 
the  condemnation  of  these  goods.  And,  fearing  defeat  under  the  new 
mode  of  summoning  jurois,  he  would  be  most  likely  to  suggest  the  resto- 
ration of  the  former  practice,  until  these  cases  were  disposed  of.  This 
infereece  may  not  be  justified  by  the  facts,  but  the  act  bears  so  strong  a 
resemblance  to  the  previous  devices  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  as  to  render  the  con- 
clusion plain  and  obvious,  especially  in  the  absence  of  any  evidence  to 
show  the  necessity  of  the  act  for  any  other  purpose. 

It  is  deemed  to  be  useful  and  proper  to  chronicle  these  remarkable 
events,  as  interfering  with  the  purity  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury,  and  as 
connected  with  the  persecutions  and  embarrassments  to  which  foreign 
commerce  was  subjected  by  the  harsh,  illegal,  and  arbitrary  conduct  of  the 
collector  of  the  port  of  New  York  and  his  confederates.  The  next  ex- 
pedient resorted  to  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  to  embarrass  the  importers  of  foreign 
woollens,  and  to  extort  from  them  large  sums  of  money,  as  a  condition 
on  which  they  might  be  permitted  to  enter  their  goods  at  the  custom- 
house, and  prosecute  their  business,  consisted  of  prosecutions,  or  threat- 
ened prosecutions,  against  these  importers,  under  the  68th  section  of  the 
act  of  1799,  for  alleged  entries,  made  during  the  term  of  Mr.  Swartwout, 
on  invoices  at  a  rate  below  the  real  cost  of  the  goods,  with  intent  to  de- 
fraud the  revenue.  Most  of  these  goods  had  been  entered,  and  the 
duties  paid,  eighteen  months,  and  in  some  instances  two  years,  before  the 
date  of  the  threatened  prosecutions.  A  concise  history  of  these  cases 
will  be  given,  from  which  it  will  abundantly  appear  that  they  were 
founded  neither  on  law  nor  evidence  ;  that  the  collector  on  various  occa- 
sions admitted  that  he  had  no  evidence  on  which  he  could  rely,  to  con- 
vict the  defendants  in  these  prosecutions;  and  that  the  money  extorted 
from  them  was  paid  to  him  under  duresse,  and  by  an  arrangement  m;»de 
with  them,  to  fill  the  measure  of  his  avarice,  without  pretending  to  have 
any  legal  demand  on  them,  either  for  duties  unpaid  or  penalties  ascertain- 
ed by  the  judgment  of  the  district  court  of  the  United  Slates.  The  fall 
importations  of  woollens  into  the  port  of  New  York,  of  the  year  1839, 
were  unusually  large,  and  offered  temptations  to  the  collector  of  pecu- 
niary gain,  by  means  of  the  arbitrary  power  which  he  exercised  over  the 
foreign  commerce  of  the  country,  not  to  be  resisted.  The  amount  of 
goods  in  the  public  stores  belonging  to  these  importers,  and  which  they 


96 


Rep.  No.  669. 


were  desirous  to  enter,  and  pay  the  duties  accruing  thereon  to  the 
collector,  may  be  estimated  at  about  three  millions  of  dollars,  but  they 
were  refused  permission  to  enter  them,  until  they  had  satisfied  the  de- 
mands of  the  collector  for  supposed  breaches  of  the  revenue  laws 
alleged  against  them  in  foimer  importations.  Mr.  Hoyt  states,  in  a  letter 
to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  that  he  had  caused  process  to  be  issued 
against  four  of  the  importers, two  of  whom  were  arrested,  (to  wit,  Samuel 
Bradbury  and  George  Shaw,)  who  were  held  to  bail  under  the  bloody  66th 
in  the  penalty  of  $20,000  each,  being,  as  Mr.  Hoyt  states,  double  the 
amount  of  the  sum  for  the  recovery  of  which  the  suits  had  been  institut- 
ed. This  bail  was  afterwards  reduced  to  $5,000,  for  reasons  given  by 
Mr.  Hoyt,  in  his  letter  to  the  Solicitor.  The  other  importers,  being 
threatened  with  suits  of  a  similar  character,  offered  to  pledge  they*  goods 
in  store  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  the  requisite  bail,  but  Mr.  Hoyt,  on 
being  informed  of  their  intention  in  this  manner  to  give  bail  and  defend 
the  suits,  knowing  themselves  to  be  innocent  of  the  charge  alleged  against 
them,  immediately  caused  them  to  notified  that,  if  any  attempt  was  made 
to  pledge  these  goods  for  that  purpose,  he  would  immediately  put  them 
under  seizure  to  prevent  it.  Thus  left  at  the  mercy  of  the  collector,  and 
liable  to  incarceration,  and  other  vexatious  proceedings  against  them,  in 
a  country  where  they  were  chiefly  strangers,  they  were  driven  to  the  ne- 
cessity of  retiring  for  the  time  being  to  Montreal,  to  avoid  the  persecu- 
tions to  which  they  were  subjected,  until  they  might  find  relief,  by  a  direct 
application  to  their  own  Government,  or  until  it  should  be  the  pleasure  of 
Mr.  Hoyt  to  allow  them  to  return  and  prosecute  their  lawful  business 
without  further  interruption. 

These  absentees,  it  is  in  proof,  were  for  a  considerable  length  of  time 
in  the  city  of  New  York,  and  almost  every  day  at  the  custom-house,  en- 
deavoring to  prevail  on  the  collector  to  allow  them  to  enter  their  goods 
and  pay  the  duties.  It  is  evident  that  Mr.  Hoyt  might  have  procured  the 
service  of  process  on  them  at  any  time  during  their  residence  in  New 
York,  if  he  had  really  desired  to  do  so ;  but  from  the  evidence  of  Samuel 
Lupton,  then  an  officer  of  the  customs,  and  intimately  associated  with  Mr. 
Hoyt,  it  appears  that  his  object  was,  to  alarm  their  fears,  and  thereby  in- 
duce them  to  leave  New  York,  in  which  case  he  might  dictate  the  condi- 
tions on  which  they  should  be  permitted  to  return,  enter  their  goods,  and 
proceed  in  their  business  without  the  fear  of  legal  proceedings  against 
them,  such  as  had  been  threatened.  Mr.  Lupton  states  that  he  was  sent 
for  by  the  collector  frequently,  and  that  in  his  conversations  he  de- 
nounced the  Yorkshiremen  as  a  set  of  rascals,  and  asked  the  witness  if 
he  knew  the  prominent  men  among  them,  to  which  he  replied  in  the 
affirmative  ;  that  afterwards,  when  he  saw  these  men,  he  told  them  that 
they  had  better  flee,  for  that  Jesse  (meaning  Jesse  Hoyt,  collector)  was 
after  them.  From  these  conversations  with  the  collector,  and  his  manner 
at  the  time,  the  witness  states  it  as  his  opinion  that  it  was  the  intention 
of  Mr.  Hoyt  that  the  fears  of  these  men  should  be  excited,  so  as  to  induce 
them  to  leave  the  city.  The  witness  further  states,  that  he  called  on 
John  Piatt,  one  of  the  Yorkshiremen,  several  times,  and  gave  him  notice 
to  escape,  in  consequence  of  the  threats  of  Mr.  Hoyt;  that  Mr.  Piatt  re- 
plied, that  he  would  not  leave  New  York  for  Jesse  Hoyt  or  any  other 
man — that  he  had  done  nothing  that  he  was  ashamed  of,  or  that  he  was 
afraid  to  have  known.    He  testified,  also,  that  Mr.  Hoyt  might  have  had 


Rep.  No.  669. 


97 


all  these  men  arrested  if  he  had  desired  it — they  were  frequently  in  the 
collector's  office  and  in  the  public  stores,  and  their  places  of  residence 
were  well  known  ;  and,  further,  that  Mr.  Hoyt  had  never  sent  for  him  be- 
fore or  since,  and  then  only,  to  hold  the  conversations  above  alluded  to. 
The  same  evidence,  in  substance,  was  given  by  John  Harris,  and  several 
other  witnesses.  Another  device  resorted  to  by  Mr.  Hoyt  through  his 
subordinate  officers  was,  to  endeavor  to  prevail  on  the  importers  to  re- 
ceive their  old  entries,  on  which  he  had  threatened  to  institute  suits 
against  them,  and  thus  commit  them  to  an  ac  twhich  would  be  prima  facie 
evidence  of  a  fraudulent  intent  in  making  these  entries,  by  means  of 
which,  and  the  evidence  of  his  subordinates  employed  on  the  occasion  to 
throw  the  onus  on  them,  to  prove  the  actual  cost  of  the  goods.  The  offer 
was  made  and  indignantly  rejected  by  these  foreign  importers,  stating  that 
their  entries  had  always  been  fair,  and  that  they  had  nothing  to  fear  by 
their  production  in  court.  On  several  other  occasions  Mr.  Hoyt  in- 
structed the  district  attorney,  when  he  had  made  seizures  without  proof,  to 
hold  the  importers  to  heavy  bail  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799, 
in  which  case  they  would  in  all  probability  run  away,  and  abandon  their 
claim  to  the  goods.  These  circumstances  are  noted  to  show  the  unworthy 
expedients  resorted  to  by  the  collector,  to  obtain  possession  of  foreign 
merchandise,  and  appropriate  the  proceeds  to  his  own  use,  without  a  fair 
and  impartial  trial,  in  which  he  knew  he  could  not  be  successful,  for  the 
want  of  proof  to  sustain  and  justify  the  seizures. 

Each  of  the  importers  who  retired  to  Montreal  left  in  the  city  of  New 
York  an  attorney  in  fact,  regularly  appointed  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
United  States,  with  full  authority  to  enter  at  the  custom-house  all  their 
goods  in  store,  and  such  as  might  subsequently  arrive.    These  attorneys 
in  fact  made  frequent  applications  to  the  collector  to  enter  the  goods  be- 
longing to  their  principals  then  in  store,  and  for  the  entry  of  such  goods 
as  arrived  from  time  to  time  consigned  to  them  or  held  as  their  own  prop- 
erty.   But  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  direct  violation  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
and  the  uniform  practice  at  the  custom-house,  denied  to  them  the  undoubt- 
ed right  which  they  had  to  enter  such  goods  and  pay  the  duties  thereon. 
Shortly  afterwards,  Mr.  Hoyt  opened  a  correspondence  with  these  attor- 
neys in  fact  of  the  absent  importers,  for  the  purpose  of  compromising  the 
threatened  prosecutions  against  them,  on  the  payment  of  certain  sums  of 
money,  which  the  collector  demanded,  and  the  payment  of  which  he  en- 
forced by  the  exercise  of  the  arbitrary  power  of  refusing  to  permit  their 
goods  to  entry,  knowing  that  to  detain  them  in  store  for  any  length  of 
time  would  be  destructive  to  the  interests  of  the  importers,  and  in  some 
cases  would  involve  them  in  utter  ruin  and  bankruptcy.    The  only  alter- 
native left  to  them  was,  to  incur  these  inevitable  and  heavy  losses,  or  sub- 
mit to  any  terms  wThich  the  collector  might  dictate.    The  history  of  these 
transactions  may  be  found  in  the  depositions  of  C.  VV.  Dayton,  Jonathan 
Miller,  George  Shaw,  John  Harris,  John  Taylor,  jr.,  and  other  witnesses^ 
who  testified  on  this  subject  before  the  commissioners.    The  negotiations 
resulted  in  the  payment  to  Mr.  Hoyt  and  the  district  attorney,  Benjamin 
F.  Butler,  of  the  following  sums,  by  the  persons  with  whom  these  forced 
compromises  were  made,  to  wit:  • 

John  Taylor,  jr.  -----  -  $25,000 

Counsel  fee  to  B.  F.  Butler,  as  per  receipt     -  500 


98 


Rep.  No.  669. 


James  Bottomly,  jr.      -          -          -  $20,000 

Counsel  lee  to  B.  F.  Butler,  as  per  receipt  50 

George  Shaw  -------  15,000 

Counsel  fee  to  B.  F.  Butler,  as  per  receipt      -          -          -  125 

Samuel  Shaw  -           ------  5,000 

Counsel  fee  to  B.  F.  Butler,  as  per  receipt  50 

Samuel  Bradbury  7,500 

Piatt  &  Duncan           ------  7,600 

Counsel  fee  to  B.  F.  Butler,  as  per  receipt      -          -          -  100 

Henry  Dixon  -------  6,000 

Counsel  fee  to  B.  F.  Butler,  as  per  receipt  50 


Making  the  grand  total  of  -  86,875 


In  most  of  these  cases  no  suits  were  pending  in  court.    Process  had 


been  served  only  on  one  of  them,  (George  Shaw,)  who  had  given  bail  in 
$5,000,  from  whom  the  collector  exacted  $15,000,  being  $5,000  more 
than  the  sum  originally  demanded  at  the  commencement  of  the  suit,  which 
Mr.  Shaw  was  compelled  to  pay,  or  suffer  his  goods  to  remain  in  store  for 
an  indefinite  period  of  time,  at  the  pleasure  of  the  collector.  In  no  other 
case  had  process  been  served  on  either  of  the  parties.  James  Bottomly, 
jr.,  was  in  England,  and  no  process  had  been  sued  out  against  him,  nor 
had  he,  at  that  time,  any  goods  in  store,  but  the  collector  alleged  that  he 
had  formerly  defrauded  the  revenue;  and  William  Bottomly  (his  bro- 
ther) having  goods  in  store  to  the  amount  of  $750,000,  the  collector  per- 
emptorily refused  to  admit  them  to  entry,  although  no  allegation  of  fraud 
was  made  or  pretended  against  him,  unless  the  sum  of  $20,000  was  first 
paid  to  satisfy  the  nominal  demand  of  the  collector.  Mr.  Hoyt  said  that 
somebody  should  pay  it,  he  did  not  care  who  it  was,  and  that  he  would 
never  suffer  William  Bottomly's  goods  to  be  entered  until  the  money  was 
paid.  The  payment  was  thus  coerced  from  an  innocent  man,  who  stood 
acquitted  of  any  attempt  to  evade  or  defraud  the  revenue,  by  the  power 
which  the  collector  held  and  exercised  over  his  goods  in  store,  contrary 
to  all  law,  and  in  violation  both  of  his  duty  and  of  every  moral  principle 
which  ought  to  govern  the  conduct  of  a  high  officer  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States.  This  act  was  nothing  more  nor  less  than  public  rob- 
bery, practised  in  open  day,  on  the  subject  of  a  foreign  Power,  between 
which  and  the  United  States  there  existed  a  commercial  treaty  and  the 
relations  of  perfect  amily ;  and  this  deed  was  done  with  the  approbation 
of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  not  only  approved  by  that  Department, 
but  commended  as  a  faithful  execution  of  his  duty  to  the  Government. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  then  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  during  the  progress  of 
these  extraordinary  proceedings,  addressed  a  letter  (see  Appendix  K)  to 
Benj.  F.  Butler,  district  attorney  for  the  United  States,  dated  December 
23,  1839,  and  also  a  letter  to  Jesse  Hoyt,  collector,  dated  December  21, 
1839,  asking  information  as  to  the  grounds  on  which  suits  had  been  or- 
dered against  the  above-named  importers,  and  the  causes  which  had  led 
to  an  adjustment  of  them,  prior  to  a  final  trial  in  the  district  court.  In 
the  letter  of  the  Solicitor  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  reply  to  several  letters  received 
from  him,  dated  December  16,  1839,  he  says :  "  As  you  refer  in  all  these 
letters  to  the  reasons  assigned  in  the  case  of  John  Taylor,  jr.,  above  refer- 
red to,  for  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  compromise,  I  send  you  enclosed 


Rep.  No.  669. 


99 


a  copy  of  a  letter  from  this  office  to  the  district  attorney,  dated  November 
25,  in  relation  to  that  case,  and  beg  to  say  that,  after  suit  has  been  com- 
menced and  reported  to  this  office,  no  settlement  or  adjustment  should  be 
made  unless  by  the  judgment  of  the  court,  or  with  the  sanction  of  this 
office,  after  a  full  report,  from  the  district  attorney  and  collector,  of  the 
reasons  for  the  same." 

He  further  calls  on  the  collector  to  report  fully  all  the  facts  in  regard  to 
each  of  these  cases,  to  show  the  exact  grounds  on  which  suits  were  insti- 
tuted, and  the  nature  of  the  suit,  whether  for  penalty,  forfeiture,  or  duties, 
and  why  the  causes  were  not  permitted  to  take  the  regular  course  of 
judicial  adjustment.  He  further  adds,  in  the  conclusion  of  this  letter,  a 
request  that  in  no  future  case  reported  to  his  office,  or  sent  to  the  dis- 
trict attorney  for  suit,  be  withdrawn  in  any  way  from  the  regular  course 
of  adjudication,  without  all  the  facts  being  first  reported  to  the  office  of  the 
Solicitor,  and  the  receipt  of  its  sanction  obtained.  The  letter  addressed 
to  Mr.  Butler  is  substantially  of  the  same  import.  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  his  reply 
to  the  Solicitor,  states  that  the  suits  against  the  persons  named  were 
commenced  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  and  of  course  for  a 
forfeiture  of  all  the  goods,  or  the  invoice  price  thereof,  alleged  to  have 
been  fraudulently  entered  by  the  defendants,  and  that  all  the  cases  rest  on 
the  same  principles.  In  relation  to  the  inquiry  why  the  suits  were  not 
permitted  to  take  the  regular  course  of  judicial  adjustment,  Mr.  Hoyt 
answers  as  follows : 

u  First.  My  experience  with  the  courts  and  juries,  in  reference  to  "ju- 
dicial adjustments"  in  this  district,  in  cases  where  the  collector  and  the 
United  States  are  interested,  leads  me  to  distrust  the  value  of  such  ad- 
justments. 

"  Second.  //  ivas  because  I  received,  in  my  own  opinion,  as  ivell  as  in 
the  opinion  of  the  district  attorney,  a  much  larger  sum  out  of  court  than 
we  could  have  obtained  by  remaining  in." 

In  another  letter,  addressed  by  Mr.  Hoyt  to  Mr.  Gilpin,  the  Solicitor,  he 
holds  the  following  language  in  reference  to  these  cases,  which  is  so  pe- 
culiar and  striking,  and  demonstrates  so  clearly  the  fraudulent  intent  of 
the  collector  in  instituting  these  suits,  and  his  subsequent  compromises 
with  the  defendants,  that  it  is  deemed  proper  to  insert  the  extract  at  large, 
taken  from  the  letter  itself.    He  says  : 

u  I  will  settle  all  I  can,  for  it  is  a  hopeless  task  to  get  any  verdicts  from 
the  hands  of  Judges  Betts  and  Mr.  WaddeVs  juries.  We  tried  two 
cases  of  seizures  last  March,  which  were  as  plain  and  obvious  as  any  thing 
could  be,  but  the  jury  acquitted  them.  I  have  not  reported  them,  because 
I  directed  the  district  attorney  to  make  cases  and  move  to  set  aside  the 
verdicts,  on  the  ground  of  their  being  against  evidence,  so  plain  did  I  con- 
sider them.  In  the  cases,  of  Taylor  and  Shaw,  and  the  others,  commenced 
under  similar  circumstances,  we  should  have  had  great  difficulty  in  re 
covering,  for  the  reason  that  we  had  not  the  possession  of  the  original  or 
any  other  invoices,  and  therefore  had  no  means  of  showing  from  whom  the 
goods  were  purchased  ;  but  the  parties  supposed  that  I  knew  much  more  of 
those  affairs  than  I  actually  did,  and,  having  the  fear  of  the  collector  some- 
what before  their  eyes,  they  had  thought  best  to  settle  the  suits ;  and  oth- 
ers entertain  the  same  opinion,  and  no  doubt  will  make  satisfactory  terms." 

The  discrepancy  between  the  statements  made  by  Mr.  Butler,  the  dis- 
trict attorney,  to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  and  those  contained  in  the 


100 


Rep.  No.  669. 


above  extract  from  the  letter  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  are  very  peculiar,  and  difficult 
to  be  reconciled. 

Mr.  Butler,  in  his  report  setting  forth  the  grounds  of  the  suits  instituted 
under  the  act  of  1799  against  the  importers  of  foreign  woollens,  refers  to 
the  case  of  Samuel  R.  Wood,  and,  relying  on  the  hearsay  testimony  of 
George  R.  Ives,  who  has  been  shown  to  be  unworthy  of  belief,  says: 
u  The  disclosures  in  that  suit  led  the  collector  to  examine  the  course  of 
dealing  at  the  custom-house,  prior,  for  the  most  part,  to  the  period  of  his 
appointment,  of  the  several  persons  above  named.  He  collected  their  vari- 
ous entries  and  invoices,  and,  after  full  examination,  made  by  him  and  my- 
self, in  July  and  August  last,  we  came  to  the  conclusion  that  suits  might  safely 
be  brought,  and  ought  to  be  brought,  against  the  above-named  defendants." 

Mr.  Hoyt  expressly  states,  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  facts  stated  by 
Mr.  Butler  concerning  these  invoices,  that,  u  in  the  cases  of  Taylor  and 
Shaw,  and  the  others,  commenced  under  similar  circumstances,  we  should 
have  had  great  difficulty  in  recovering,  for  the  reason  that  ice  had  not 
possession  of  the  original  or  other  invoices ."  But  he  draws  consolation 
from  the  supposed  ignorance  of  the  defendants  of  the  proofs  which  he  ac- 
tually possessed,  they  believing  that  he  knew  much  more  of  these  affairs 
than  he  did.  His  next  reliance,  which  certainly  approached  much  nearer 
to  the  truth,  was  on  the  fears  they  entertained  of  the  collector  ;  and  on 
that  ground  he  founded  his  hopes  of  extorting  money  from  the  whole  of 
them,  which  he  states  himself  he  could  not  have  recovered  by  remaining 
in  court.  The  sagacity  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  arriving  at  this  conclusion,  has  been 
since  abundantly  demonstrated  in  the  trials  of  all  the  cases  where  the  de- 
fendants, "  not  having  the  fear  of  the  collector  before  their  eyes,"  refus- 
ed to  enter  into  the  iniquitous  and  illegal  compromises  proposed  to  them 
by  the  collector.  These  cases,  after  remaining  on  the  docket  of  the  dis- 
trict court  of  the  United  States  for  more  than  two  years,  were  abandoned 
and  discontinued  by  the  district  attorney,  on  the  ground  that  he  had  no 
evidence  to  convict  the  defendants.  All  the  other  cases,  where  compro- 
mises were  enforced  by  the  refusal  of  the  collector  to  permit  the  defend- 
ants to  enter  their  goods  in  store,  or  which  might  thereafter  arrive,  or  to 
pledge  these  goods  to  any  one  who  might  become  their  bail  until  the  sums 
demanded  of  them  by  the  arbitrary  dictum  of  the  collector,  were  in  all  re- 
spects precisely  similar  to  the  cases  which  the  district  attorney  has  been 
compelled  to  discontinue  for  the  want  of  proof.  It  is  manifest,  therefore, 
that  these  enormous  exactions  were  coerced,  and  that,  if  the  cases  had 
been  continued  in  court,  the  result  would  have  been  the  entire  acquittal  of 
the  defendants.  The  persecutions  of  the  collector,  and  the  embarrass- 
ments thrown  in  the  way  of  the  regular  business  of  many  of  these  foreign 
merchants,  drove  them  to  the  alternative  of  retiring  without  the  limits  of  the 
United  States  for  a  few  months  ;  and  this  circumstance,  arising  solely  out  of 
the  unwarrantable  conduct  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector,  has  been  seized  on 
with  avidity,  as  the  strongest  evidence  which  could  be  adduced  of  their  guilt. 
It  was  charged  on  them,  that  they  fled  from  justice,  and  thereby  admit- 
ted the  frauds  on  the  revenue  alleged  to  have  been  committed  by  them 
on  former  occasions.  Mr.  Samuel  Lawrence,  who  took  a  deep  interest  in 
these  prosecutions,  in  his  testimony  given  before  the  commissioners,speak- 
ing  of  the  importers  of  woollen  goods  from  England,  and  of  his  belief  that 
they  had  committed  frauds  on  the  revenue,  states:  "  Some  of  these  import- 
ers are  the  same  men  Mr.  Hoyt  compromised  with.    The  fact  of  their 


Rep.  No.  669. 


101 


fleeing  from  the  country,  and  then  paying  large  sums  for  permission  tore- 
turn,  are  stronger  evidences  of  their  guilt  than  any  evidence  I  could  ad- 
duce.   Their  names  must  be  found  written  in  capitals  on  the  books  of  the 
New  York  custom- house."    And  Mr.  Stone,  of  the  house  of  Lawrence  & 
Stone,  testified  that  he  asked  Mr.  Hoyt  why  it  was  that  the  Yorkshiremen 
who  ran  away  to  Canada  were  in  New  York  again  publicly  ?    He  replied, 
w  that  they  had  paid  the  fiddler;"  Mr.  Hoyt  himself  having  been  the  chief 
musician  on  that  occasion.    After  enumerating  the  sums  extorted  from 
these  men,  Mr.  Stone  says  "that  Mr.  Hoyt  called  on  him  at  the  Astor 
House,  and  stated,  in  a  conversation  with  the  witness,  that  he  thought 
this  the  best  way  to  punish  them,  because  it  would  be  a  difficult 
matter  to  get  evidence  to  convict  them  ;  and  that  it  was  impossible 
to  get  a  jury  in  New  York  to  convict,  even  with  enough  evidence." 
Thus  it  appears,  that  between  Mr.  Hoyt  and  these  domestic  manu- 
facturers there  was  a  distinct  understanding  in  relation  to  the  means  to 
be  employed  to  drive  these  men  out  of  the  United  States  ;  and,  by  refusing 
them  permission  to  enter  the  large  amount  of  woollens  imported  by  them 
into  the  port  of  New  York,  to  give,  for  the  time  being,  these  manufactu- 
rers of  woollens  the  entire  command  of  the  market.    Mr.  Stone  seemed 
to  think  that  Mr.  Hoyt  had  had  not  fulfilled  his  part  of  the  engagement, 
and  asked  him,  with  apparent  surprise,  why  these  men  were  again  in  New 
York  publicly  ?    Mr.  Hoyt  excuses  himself  by  saying  that  they  had  paid 
the  fiddler,  adding,  that  this  was  the  best  way  to  punish  them,  especially 
as  he  had  no  proof  to  convict  them,  and  could  not  rely  on  New  York 
juries,  even  if  he  had  pvoof.    The  whole  of  the  correspondence  of  the 
collector  and  district  attorney  with  the  Treasury  Department  on  this  sub- 
ject will  be  found  in  the  appendix  to  this  report.    It  discloses  throughout 
a  tissue  of  premed  jtated  perfidy  and  fraud  on  these  foreign  importers, 
which  has  no  parallel  in  the  history  of  this  or  any  other  civilized  country, 
w  here  the  laws  constitute  a  rule  of  action,  and  the  faith  of  treaties  is  recog- 
nised and  observed.    The  motives  of  the  collector  were  mercenary  and 
corrupt  in  thf  •  inception  of  these  proceedings,  and  animated  all  his  acts  to 
the  final  cop  summation  of  the  official  robbery  which  he  perpetrated  on  his 
victims,  ir  ,  open  day,  and  with  the  approbation  of  the  Government  at 
Washingt-  on?  to  which  he  ought  to  have  been  held  responsible  for  conduct 
so  disgra  cefui  to  the  national  character,  and  so  injurious  in  its  consequen- 
ces to  t'l)e  commerce  and  revenues  of  the  country.    Mr.  Gilpin,  it  is  true, 
made  an  effort,  while  he  filled  the  office  of  Solicitor,  to  arrest  the  collector 
IB  b'lS  career  of  avarice,  in  violation  of  our  own  laws,  and  the  high  obli- 
gations of  national  faith,  pledged  to  foreign  Governments  in  treaty  stipula- 
tions, reciprocity  binding  on  the  contracting  parties;  but  his  successor, 
yielding  \C  lne  importunities  and  false  representations  of  the  collector, 
gave  hfs  un  qualified  approval  of  all  the  acts  of  Mr.  Hoyt  towards  these 
importers  alt*  "*ough  he  admits,  in  express  terms,  that  the  compromises  en- 
tered into' with    tnem  D^  tne  collector  nad  Deen  forbidden  by  his  prede- 
cessor, without  i  ^e  sPec*a*  sanction  of  that  office  first  had  and  obtained. 
•Mr.  Hoyt  unbiuk  informs  tne  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the 

Solicitor  that  tbew>  compromises  were  made  because  he  had  no  evidence 
On  Which  to  cor  t  the  det'endants  5  lnat  ne  nad  received  a  much  larger 
sum  hv  ♦  -1        *    °i  court  than  he  could  have  obtained  by  remaining 

i     com, P hi T  °  "V      0  confidence,  in  courts,  and  juries,  and  judicial 


102 


Eep.  No.  669. 


climax  of  his  iniquity,  he  boasts  of  having  overreached  and  entrapped  the 
defendants,  by  pretending  to  know  more  of  these  matters  than  he  really 
did,  and  of  having  evidence  against  them  which  he  acknowledges  he  had 
not,  and  thus,  by  a  system  of  fraud  and  deception,  he  hoped  to  bring  them 
all  into  his  terms  of  settlement,  and  thereby  avoid  the  inevitable  defeat 
for  the  want  of  evidence  which  awaited  him,  if  he  brought  the  cases  to  a 
fair  and  impartial  trial,  before  the  courts  and  juries,  whose  verdicts  and 
decisions  he  so  strongly  deprecated  and  feared.  These  unqualified  ad- 
missions of  the  collector  could  not  be  misunderstood  at  the  Treasury 
Department,  where  alone  the  proper  corrective  could  be  applied.  They 
are  sufficient  to  stamp  on  these  transactions  the  most  unqualified  infamy 
and  treachery,  calculated  to  inflict  a  deep  wound  on  the  purity  and  moral 
character  of  the  Government  ;  and  yet,  so  far  from  being  rebuked,  they 
were  approved  and  commended  by  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Department, 
and  one  moiety  of  the  money  thus  extorted  from  these  foreigners,  without 
the  authority  of  law  or  precedent,  was  nominally  passed  to  the  credit  of 
the  United  States  without  compunction,  and  with  as  little  ceremony  as  if 
it  had  been  received  for  duties  properly  imposed,  or  penalties  legally  in- 
flicted by  the  judgment  of  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction.  The  other 
moiety  was  retained  by  the  collector,  as  in  the  case  of  fines,  penalties,  and 
forfeitures. 

It  appears  by  the  letter  of  Mr.  Hoyt  (see  Appendix  K)  of  the  7th  day 
of  January,  1840,  that  these  suits,  or  threatened  suits,  were  not  brought 
to  recover  a  deficiency  of  duties  paid  to  the  United  States  at  the  time  of 
the  entry  of  the  goods,  but  for  an  entire  forfeiture,  supposed  to  have  ac- 
crued on  the  ground  of  fraudulent  invoices,  because,  as  Mr.  Hoyt  informs 
the  Solicitor,  this  form  of  action  "  makes,  with  the  aid  of  other  sections, 
not  necessary  to  name,  a  provision  for  the  collector  and  other  officers  of 
the  Government  ;  but,  as  an  equivalent  for  the  benefits  enuring  to  the  col- 
lector and  his  associates,  it  confers  on  the  United  States  one-half  of  the 
recovery,  instead  of  the  deficiency  of  duties."  Thus  Mr.  Hoyt  concedes 
that  the  whole  proceeding  against  these  importers  of  foreign  woollens 
was  founded  on  mercenary  calculations  of  profit  to  himself  and  his  asso- 
ciates, while  he  holds  out  the  like  temptation  to  the  Treasury  Department, 
to  reconcile  his  gross  violations  of  law  and  duty  to  the  conscience  of  the 
head  of  that  Department. 

It  will  be  seen,  by  reference  to  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  that 
the  basis  of  all  prosecutions  under  that  section  must  be,  that  the  goods 
were  "  not  invoiced  at  the  actual  cost  thereof  at  the  place  of  exportation, 
with  design  to  evade  the  duties  thereupon."  On  this  ground  only  can  a 
suit  be  maintained,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  above-mentioned 
act,  and  no  recovery  in  such  suit  can  be  had  for  a  less  amount  than  the 
whole  value  of  all  goods,  wares,  and  merchandise,  so  fraudulently  in- 
voiced, with  design  to  evade  the  duties  thereon,  which  are  declared,  in  all 
.such  cases,  to  be  forfeited  to  the  United  States.  Mr.  Butler,  the  district 
attorney,  being  aware  of  these  provisions  of  the  act,  cautiously  informs 
the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  in  his  letter  hereinbefore  referred  to,  bear- 
ing date  the  20th  day  of  December,  1839,  that  Mr.  Hoyt  had  carefully 
examined  the  course  of  dealing  at  the  custom-house,  for  a  long  period 
past,  and  had  collected  these  various  entries  and  invoices,  and  after  full 
examination  of  these  entries  and  invoices,  made  by  him  and  the  collector. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


103 


they  came  to  the  conclusion  that  suits  might  be  safely  brought  against  the 
importers. 

These  are  the  facts  assumed  by  the  district  attorney,  well  knowing  that 
the  invoices,  or  certified  copies  thereof,  were  indispensable  to  success  in 
all  suits  brought  to  recover  a  forfeiture  of  goods  charged  to  be  invoiced 
below  their  actual  cost.  But  Mr.  Hoyt  informed  the  solicitor,  on  the 
same  subject,  that  "  we  should  have  had  great  difficulty  in  recovering,  for 
the  reason  that  we  had  not  the  possession  of  the  original  or  any  other 
invoices;"  thereby  clearly  admitting  that  there  was  no  foundation  for  these 
actions,  in  the  absence  of  the  only  evidence  on  which  a  charge  could  be 
sustained  that  the  goods  were  invoiced  below  their  actual  cost  at  the  place 
whence  imported,  with  intent  to  defraud  the  revenue.  Which  of  these 
two  high  officers  of  the  Government  represented  the  case  truly,  in  their 
official  correspondence,  is  not  distinctly  known,  but  it  is  believed  that 
Mr.  Hoyt  is  correct  in  stating  that  he  had  no  invoices,  either  original  or 
others,  because  none  such  were  in  the  possession  of  the  district  attorney 
in  the  three  cases  that  were  brought  to  trial  and  discontinued.  It  is  evi- 
dent, therefore,  that  the  collector  could  not  have  succeeded  in  extorting 
the  large  sums  which  he  r  eceived  from  the  defendants,  under  the  name  of 
compromises,  by  any  other  device  than  the  exercise  of  an  arbitrary  power, 
which  he  did  by  virtue  of  his  office,  of  detaining  in  store  the  vast  amount 
of  woollens  belonging  to  or  consigned  to  them,  and  of  denying  to  them 
the  privilege  of  entry  at  the  custom-house  until  the  terms  dictated  and 
prescribed  by  him,  as  a  condition  for  such  privilege,  were  fully  complied 
with.  In  this  manner,  and  none  other,  did  he  accomplish  his  original  pur- 
pose, by  forcing  a  compliance  with  his  iniquitous  demands  on  these  men, 
who,  as  far  as  the  evidence  has  been  disclosed,  were  wholly  innocent  of 
the  charges  made  against  them.  There  were  no  data  on  which  the  col- 
lector could  form  an  estimate  of  any  claim  or  pretended  claim  which  he 
might  make  on  the  defendants.  And  Mr.  Butler,  in  his  letter  to  the  Soli- 
citor on  this  subject,  frankly  admits  that,  "  in  stating  the  amount  of  the 
alleged  forfeiture  in  any  case,  and  for  which  the  defendant  was  to  be  held 
.to  bail,  we  were  necessarily  obliged  to  assume  conj  cturally  such  amounts 
as  we  supposed  large  enough  to  cover  all  the  claims  which  might  by  pos- 
sibility be  established,  and  to  secure  adequate  bail."  Mr.  Birchard,  in 
approving  these  compromises,  states  to  Mr.  Hoyt  that  his  predecessor 
(Mr.  Gilpin)  "  had  full  confidence  in  both  yourself  and  the  district  attor- 
ney, and  he  exacted  the  report  of  the  7th  inst.  [January,  1840]  to  prevent 
a  precedent  which,  in  other  hands,  might  be  abused" — thus  establishing 
a  rule  in  these  particular  cases,  founded  on  individual  confidence,  which 
he  admits  ought  not  to  become  a  precedent,  because,  in  the  hands  of  men 
less  pure  and  honest  than  Mr.  Hoyt  and  Mr.  Butler,  it  might  be  abused. 

The  foregoing  summary  comprises  only  an  outline  of  the  enormities 
practised  by  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  with  the  sanction  of 
the  Treasury  Department,  on  these  foreign  importers,  by  means  of  which 
their  regular  business  was  interrupted,  their  money  extorted,  and  the  laws 
and  treaties  of  the  United  States  wantonly  violated,  in  derogation  of  the 
national  faith,  the  destruction  of  foreign  commerce,  and  the  consequent 
deterioration  of  the  public  revenue. 

The  evidence  and  correspondence  on  this  subject,  which  accompanies 
this  report,  furnishes  in  detail  all  the  facts  connected  with  it,  to  which  ref- 
erence is  made  for  a  more  full  and  clear  exposition  of  the  actings  and 


104 


Rep.  No.  669. 


doings  of  the  collector  and  district  attorney,  and  the  sanction  imparted  to 
them  by  the  Executive  Government,  in  the  consummation  of  their  crusade 
against  these  importers  of  foreign  woollens.  An  appeal  has  been  made 
by  these  men  to  the  Government  of  Great  Britain,  for  redress  of  the 
wrongs  which  they  have  suffered,  in  consequence  of  these  illegal  exac- 
tions and  the  injuries  sustained  by  them  in  the  prosecution  of  their  lawful 
commerce  with  the  United  States.  It  may,  therefore,  be  proper  to  inquire 
what  satisfactory  answer  this  Government  can  give  to  the  Government  of 
Great  Britain,  if  a  demand  should  be  made,  which  in  all  probability  will 
be,  if  it  has  not  already  been,  of  restitution  to  its  subjects  of  the  large 
sums  extorted  from  them  by  the  arbitrary  exercise  of  power,  not  granted 
by  law,  on  the  part  of  an  officer  charged  with  the  collection  of  the  reve- 
nue, whose  acts,  in  this  respect,  were  known  to  and  approved  by  this 
Government,  which  is  thereby  rendered  responsible  for  these  acts  to  the 
fullest  extent. 

It  may  be  assumed  as  a  postulatum,  that  the  only  sources  from  which 
money  can  be  derived  to  the  Government,  through  the  custom-houses, 
must  be  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  merchandise,  to  be  ascertain- 
ed and  fixed  according  to  the  provisions  of  law,  and  fines,  penalties,  and 
forfeitures,  for  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws,  founded  on  the  judgments 
of  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  in  a  regular  course  of  judicial  pro- 
ceedings.   If  there  be  any  other  source  from  which  money  can  be  drawn 
from  foreign  importers,  and  paid  into  the  public  Treasury,  it  remains  to  be 
pointed  out,  as  none  such  is  known  at  this  time,  and  it  is  believed  that 
none  such  exists.    The  question  then  arises,  did  Mr.  Hoyt  demand  and 
receive  the  sum  of  $86,875,  paid  to  him  by  the  foreign  importers  herein- 
before named,  in  consideration  of  duties  fairly  and  properly  assessed  on 
their  importations  ?    Assuredly  he  did  not.    The  negative  of  the  propo- 
sition is  demonstrated  by  all  the  facts  given  by  the  collector  to  the  Treas- 
ury Department;  and  Mr.  Butler  admits  that,  in  commencing  the  suits 
which  were  ordered  against  these  importers,  he  was  driven  to  the  neces- 
sity of  resorting  to  conjecture  in  fixing  a  sum  in  which  the  defendants 
might  be  held  to  bail,  which  he  took  care  to  make  large  enough  to  cover, 
every  possible  demand  which  might  thereafter  appear  to  be  due  to  the 
United  States.    The  next  inquiry  is,  was  this  sum  exacted  under  the 
judgment  of  the  courts,  for  ;fines,  penalties,  or  forfeitures,  incurred  for  a 
violation  of  the  revenue  laws?    The  answer  to  this  inquiry  is  given  in  all 
the  facts  stated  by  the  collector  and  district  attorney,  and  by  the  whole 
correspondence  of  these  officers  with  the  Treasury  Department,  from 
which  it  will  appear  that  the  cases  were  arrested  in  transitu,  in  most  of 
them,  before  process  had  been  served,  and  in  others  no  suit  had  been 
commenced,  and  in  all  the  cases  which  were  brought  to  trial  the  inno- 
cence of  the  defendants  was  clearly  established,  and  the  suits  abandoned. 
If,  then,  money  has  been  paid  into  the  public  Treasury,  or  is  retained  by 
the  collector  for  his  own  use  and  that  of  his  associates,  forcibly  drawn 
from  the  pockets  of  foreign  importers,  neither  for  duties  nor  penalties  prop- 
erly ascertained  or  adjudged  against  them,  is  it  compatible  with  the  jus- 
tice or  honor  of  this  Government  to  retain  and  appropriate  it  as  the  prop- 
erty of  the  United  States,  with  full  evidence  that  it  was  extorted  by  the 
exercise  of  arbitrary  powers  in  violation  of  law,  not  for  duties  due  to 
the  Government  on  the  importation  of  foreign  merchandise,  nor  penalties 
iacturzed  by  the  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  ?    There  would  seem  to  be 


Rep.  No.  669. 


105 


no  principle  recognised  in  the  commercial  intercourse  between  civilized  na- 
tions, which  would  justify  a  proceeding  so  inconsistent  with  the  dictates  of 
common  honesty,  and  so  derogatory  to  the  lofty  character  which  this  Gov- 
ernment has  ever  maintained,  in  all  its  relations  with  foreign  Powers.  If 
a  naval  commander  of  a  national  vessel  in  the  service  of  the  United 
States  should,  either  with  or  without  authority,  arrest  a  merchant  ship 
engaged  in  a  lawful  commerce,  belonging  to  and  sailing  under  the  flag  of 
another  nation,  and  detain  such  vessel  on  her  voyage  until,  by  compul- 
sion, he  exacted  a  large  sum  from  the  captain  or  supercargo  of  such  mer- 
chant vessel  for  permission  to  proceed  to  her  destined  port,  would  this 
Government  hesitate  to  restore  the  money  thus  extorted,  when  demanded 
by  the  Government  of  the  nation  to  which  such  merchant  vessel  belong- 
ed ?  In  most  cases  it  would  not  only  become  necessary  to  repair  the  in- 
jury, but  the  offending  Government  would  be  required  to  make  a  suitable 
apology  for  the  act,  and  inflict  punishment  on  the  officer  who  had  com- 
mitted the  outrage.  Is  there  any  essential  difference  between  this  mode 
of  exacting  the  payment  of  money  by  compulsion,  and  the  case  under 
consideration,  in  which  the  subjects  of  a  foreign  Power  were  denied  the 
right  of  pursuing  a  lawful  commerce,  guarantied  by  tr  eaty  with  the  United 
States,  until  large  sums  of  money  assessed  on  them,  at  the  discretion  of 
the  collector,  should  be  paid,  as  a  condition  to  the  entry  of  their  goods  at 
the  custom-house  and  the  prosecution  of  their  lawful  business  ?  The 
latter  case  would  appear  to  be  the  stronger  of  the  two,  because  the  money 
was  equally  exacted  by  compulsion,  under  the  sanction  of  the  constituted 
authorities  of  the  Government  for  the  time  being. 

These  questions  are  respectfully  submitted,  as  involving  considerations 
worthy  to  occupy  the  grave  and  serious  attention  of  this  Government,  on 
the  decision  of  which  the  integrity  and  honor  of  the  nation,  connected 
with  its  foreign  relations,  will  either  be  sustained  and  vindicated,  or  sub- 
jected to  the  imputation  of  retaining  in  the  public  coffers  money  to  which, 
by  its  own  laws,  it  is  not  fairly  entitled.  Numerous  other  cases  of  com- 
promises with  foreign  importers,  made  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  for  the  privilege  of 
entering  their  goods,  seized  or  threatened  with  seizure,  have  undoubted- 
ly taken  place,  for  in  all  such  cases  compromises  were  proposed  by  the 
collector,  which  were  in  some  instances  accepted,  and  in  others  refused  ; 
but  these  things  were  privately  done,  and  therefore  no  distinct  evidence 
could  be  obtained  concerning  them.  There  is,  however,  one  case  to 
which  the  attention  of  the  Government  ought  to  be  drawn.  It  is  the  case 
of  a  seizure  of  a  large  amount  of  goods  consigned  to  or  in  the  possession 
of  the  firm  of  Lachaise  &  Fouche,  a  French  house,  principally  engaged 
in  the  importation  of  goods  free  of  duty.  The  history  of  this  case  may  be 
found  in  the  official  letter  of  Benj.  F.  Butler,  district  attorney,  to  the  So- 
licitor of  the  Treasury,  bearing  date  August  22,  1839,  and  in  the  deposi- 
tion of  Armand  Lachaise,  taken  by  the  commissioners,  in  the  presence  of 
his  counsel.  The  means  resorted  to  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  to  obtain  money  from 
these  foreigners,  are  unsurpassed  in  enormity  and  official  perfidy  by  any 
act  of  his  during  his  continuance  in  office.  It  seems  to  have  been  the 
policy  of  the  collector,  when  he  designed  to  make  seizures,  with  a  view 
to  compromises,  to  select  foreign  houses,  with  whom  there  would,  in  all 
probability,  be  less  sympathy  in  the  community,  and  a  better  prospect  of 
success,  than  there  would  be  if  like  proceedings  were  attempted  on  an 
American  house,  who  would  be  better  enabled  to  resist  his  persecutions 


106 


Sep.  No.  669. 


and  defend  their  rights  than  strangers,  who  possessed  no  knowledge  of 
our  institutions  and  laws,  and  whose  fears  might  the  more  readily  be 
operated  on  to  produce  the  desired  result.  Lachaise  &  Fouche  were 
Frenchmen  of  good  character  and  standing  in  France,  and  for  some  years 
prosecuted  a  successful  business  in  New  York,  as  importers  of  French 
silks  and  other  goods,  most  of  which  were  free  of  duty,  and  some  of  which 
were  dutiable.  They  were  ignorant  of  our  laws,  and  even  of  our  lan- 
guage, which  they  spoke  very  imperfectly.  Mr,  Hoyt  cast  his  eye  on 
these  men,  as  fit  subjects  for  the  operation  of  his  system  of  seizures  and 
compromises.  He  accordingly  put  in  requisition  two  of  his  subordinate 
officers,  Campbell  and  Davis,  who,  so  long  as  their  testimony  would  be  re- 
ceived in  court,  were  invariably  resorted  to,  to  implicate  foreign  import- 
ers by  swearing  to  corrupt  collusions  between  importers  and  themselves.  1 
The  opinion  of  Mr.  Hoyt  of  the  character,  for  truth  and  veracity,  of  Mr. 
James  Campbell,  is  given  in  a  letter  from  him  to  Sidney  Bartlett,  coun- 
sellor at  law,  Boston.  He  says;  w  You  need  not  be  apprehensive  of  any 
collusion  between  Campbell  and  the  claimant  of  the  cloths  you  are  about 
to  try.  He  will  avoid  intermeddling  on  either  side,  if  he  can  avoid  it. 
By  a  perusal  of  his  testimony  on  the  trial  here,  you  will  readily  perceive 
that  he  is  ready  to  make  any  statement  to  serve  himself  without  reference 
to  the  truth  <f  the  case,  but  he  would  not  dare  to  colleague  with  the  other 
side,  for,  in  that  event,  he  would  have  violated  the  understanding  (in 
a  much  greater  extent  than  he  had  already  done)  had  with  the  district 
attorney  and  myself,  when  his  confession  was  reduced  to  writing  by 
me."  This  understanding  was,  as  it  afterwards  appears  in  the  letter  of 
Mr.  Hoyt,  that  if  he  (Campbell)  would  testify  in  court,  in  certain  seizure 
cases,  as  he  was  desired  to  do  by  the  collector,  "  without  reference  to  the 
truth  of  the  case,"  he  should  be  protected  from  prosecution  for  crimes  he 
had  committed  in  his  official  capacity  at  the  custom-house.  The  charac- 
ter of  Davis  was  equally  infamous  with  that  of  Campbell.  With  the  aid 
of  these  two  persons,  Mr.  Hoyt  commenced  his  attack  on  Lachaise  & 
Fouche,  who  became  the  victims  of  his  avarice,  and  were  greatly  injured 
in  their  business,  besides  the  loss  of  reputation  which  they  sustained  in 
France,  by  means  of  the  suspicions  cast  upon  them,  while  the  charges  al- 
leged against  them  were  unexplained  and  undecided. 

They  had  in  store  goods  to  the  amount  of  about  $70,000.  Of  these  goods, 
$40,000  in  value  were  free  of  duty,  and  some  of  thern  had  passed  the  cus- 
tom-hcuse,  and  remained  in  their  possession  for  more  than  two  years.  The 
remaining  portion  of  the  goods  were  dutiable,  on  which  the  duties  had  been 
paid,  except  their  last  importation,  a  part  of  which  had  been  delivered  to 
them,  on  penal  bonds  to  deliver  them  to  the  collector  for  examination,  if 
demanded,  before  the  expiration  of  ten  days,  and  the  residue,  consisting  of 
five  cases  of  the  same  class  of  goods,  remained  in  the  public  store  for  ap- 
praisement. While  these  Frenchmen  deemed  themselves  perfectly  secure 
under  the  protection  of  the  laws,  to  which,  at  all  times,  they  were  ready 
to  submit,  and  were  in  pursuit  of  their  lawful  business,  without  the  fear  or 
apprehension  of  harm  from  any  quarter,  Mr.  Hoyt  was  secretly  engaged  in 
maturing  his  plans  for  their  utter  destruction.  In  the  month  of  April,  1838, 
without  any  notice  to  these  men  that  they  were  charged  or  suspected  of 
having  violated  the  revenue  laws  in  any  respect  whatever,  Mr.  Hoyt  sud- 
denly despatched  a  number  of  his  subordinates,  who  were  specially  author- 
ized by  him  to  seize  the  whole  of  the  goods  found  in  the  store  of  these 


Rep.  No.  669. 


107 


merchants,  as  well  such  as  were  free  of  duty  as  those  which  were  dutiable, 
and  on  which  the  duties  had  beeii  paid,  and  in  fact  every  thing  which  might 
be  found  in  their  store,  among  which  was  a  quantity  of  goods  which  had 
been  taken  by  the  house  from  other  merchants  in  payment  of  debts.  He 
simultaneously  put  under  seizure  the  five  cases  of  goods  deposited  in  the 
public  store,  before  any  appraisement  had  been  made  of  them  according  to 
law.  Mr.  Lachaise  states:  "  After  the  goods  were  thus  seized,  I  went  to  the 
collector  and  handed  him  my  invoice,  and  demanded  to  know  why  my 
goods  had  been  seized?  Mr.  Hoyt  said  that  the  goods  were  not  exactly 
right,  but  that  he  expected  they  would  be  restored  to  me,  and  that  I  must 
call  again  on  the  Monday  following.  On  Monday  I  called,  but  did  not 
find  Mr.  Koyt  at  the  custom-house,  and,  on  eoing  back  to  my  store,  I  was 
arrested  on  the  charge  of  perjury,  was  taken  to  the  marshal's  office,  and 
gave  bail  for  my  appearance.  When  I  got  back  to  my  store,  I  found  the 
custom-house  officers  there,  taking  away  the  goods,  and  most  of  the  goods 
which  I  had  left  in  the  store  had  been  taken  away  by  them;  many  of  them 
being  goods  which  had  been  imported  several  years,  and  some  of  which  I 
had  received  from  other  persons  in  payment  of  bad  debts/' 

It  does  not  appear  that  any  affidavit  was  made,  as  required  by  law,  on 
which  a  warrant  could  properly  issue  for  the  seizure  of  these  goods,  nor 
was  the  marshal  called  on  to  execute  his  duty  in  this  respect ;  but  the 
whole  proceeding  emanated  directly  from  the  collector,  and  was  conducted 
under  his  authority  alone.  No  demand  of  the  goods  bonded  appears  to 
have  been  made  by  the  collector,  of  the  importers,  within  the  time  limited, 
and  the  seizure  of  the  goods  exonerated  them  altogether  from  any  respon- 
sibility for  a  breach  of  these  bonds,  which  it  was  impossible  for  them  to 
fulfil,  since  the  goods  mentioned  in  them  were  forcibly  taken  out  of  their 
possession  by  the  orders  of  the  collector.  Besides  the  seizure  of  the  goods, 
Mr.  Hoyt  caused  three  indictments  against  Armand  Lachaise,  for  perjury, 
and  the  bribery  of  Campbell  and  Davis,  to  be  preferred  by  the  district 
attorney ;  and  on  the  evidence  of  these  two  witnesses  before  the  grand 
jury,  who,  by  the  arrangement  with  the  collector  and  district  attorney, 
above  referred  to  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Hoyt  to  Sidney  Bartlett,  testified  to 
their  own  guilt  in  receiving  a  bribe  from  the  defendant ;  and  on  such  evi- 
dence, coming  from  such  a  source,  the  grand  jury  returned  the  indictments  as 
true  bills.  The  marshal  retained  the  custody  of  the  goods  seized  for  about 
one  year,  before  the  district  attorney  filed  information  against  them,  and  no 
proceedings  were  had,  either  in  the  criminal  prosecutions  or  civil  cases, 
which  were  suspended,  until  the  defendants  were  literally  driven  to  the 
necessity  of  assenting  to  a  compromise  on  the  terms  dictated  by  Mr.  Hoyt, 
or  a  total  sacrifice  of  the  goods  under  seizure  would  have  been  the  ne- 
cessary consequence.  This  compromise  Mr.  Hoyt  was  induced  to  urge,  as 
the  only  mode  through  which  he  could  obtain  money  from  the  defendants, 
as  will  appear  by  an  official  letter  addressed  by  him  to  William  S.  Coer 
naval  officer,  and  Hector  Craig,  surveyor  of  the  port  of  New  York,  in 
which  he  acknowledges  his  inability  to  procure  a  conviction  of  the  defend- 
ants in  any  of  the  cases  pending  against  them,  both  civil  and  criminal. 
And  on  this  ground  he  places  his  exaction  of  money  from  these  men,  by 
making  with  them  a  compromise,  out  of  court,  with  a  full  knowledge^ 
which  he  confesses,  that  he  could  not  have  succeeded  in  recovering  a  judg- 
ment against  them  in  court,  on  a  final  hearing. 


108 


Rep.  No.  669. 


The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  letter  referred  to,  addressed  to  the  nava 
officer  and  surveyor,  bearing  date  May  25,  1839  : 

"  Gentlemen  :  Referring  to  a  conversation  I  had  with  you  this  morning 
in  relation  to  the  affairs  of  Messrs.  Lachaise  &  Fouche  with  this  office 
the  naval  officer  observed  that  he  had  seen  Mr.  Davis,  the  former  clerk  ii 
the  appraiser's  office,  and  from  whom  we  expected  important  testimony 
-and  that  he  would  decline  testifying  to  any  thing  that  would  implicate  him 
self:  and,  as  the  transactions  complained  of,  as  they  related  to  Lachaise  £, 
Fouche,  would  directly  implicate  Mr.  Davis,  we  should  therefore  be  de 
prived  of  his  testimony.  The  same  result  would  follow  our  expectation: 
irorn  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Campbell,  the  former  deputy,  if  we  are  to  judg( 
from  the  course  he  took  on  the  trial  of  Bottomly's  goods  and  that  would 
of  course,  leave  the  United  States  without  such  testimony  as  would  b( 
necessary  to  have,  to  ensure  a  condemnation  of  the  goods,  or  a  recovery  or 
the  penal  bonds.  An  overture  is  made,  on  the  part  of  the  house  in  question 
to  compromise  the  claim,  by  paying  the  cost  and  something  over  $45,000 
say  $45,500;  and,  under  the  advice  of  the  district  attorney  upon  the  diffi- 
culties of  the  case,  I  am  in  favor  of  accepting  the  proposition;  and,  if  il 
meets  you  approbation,  I  will  take  the  responsibility  of  closing  the  matter.'1 

This  letter  is  a  clear  admission,  on  the  part  of  the  collector,  that  he  had 
no  other  evidence  on  which  he  could  rely,  to  convict  the  goods  under  sei- 
zure, or  to  recover  on  the  penal  bonds,  but  the  testimony  which  he  expect- 
ed to  obtain  from  Campbell  and  Davis,  with  whom  he  had  made  arrange-1 
ments  and  entered  into  stipulations  by  which  they  were  to  be  protected' 
from  prosecutions  if  they  testified  to  their  own  guilt,  and  thereby  prove 
collusion  between  themselves  and  the  defendants,  in  the  entry  of  the  goods, 
and  the  reception  by  them  of  a  bribe  to  violate  their  duty  as  officers  of  the 
customs.  Being  disappointed  in  this  expectation,  he  gave  up  all  hope  of 
condemning  the  goods,  or  of  recovering  on  the  penal  bonds,  by  a  trial  in.: 
court;  and  for  this  reason  he  took  the  advice  of  the  naval  officer  and  sur- 
veyor, on  the  expediency  of  obtaining  the  large  sum  of  $45,500,  in  a  case 
where  he  could  recover  nothing  in  a  fair  and  honest  course  of  judicial  pro- 
ceedings, but  which  it  was  in  his  power  to  coerce  from  the  defendants  by' 
operating  on  their  fears  and  apprehensions,  and  by  a  system  of  persecution, 
which  his  official  station  enabled  him  to  practise  towards  them  with  impu-' 
nity.  The  assent  of  these  officers  of  the  customs  having  been  obtained,  the 
compromise  was  consummated  at  the  sum  of  $47,500,  which  having  been 
paid,  the  suits  were  arranged,  and  decrees  entered  by  consent  to  cover  that 
sum.  But  the  most  startling  feature  of  this  transaction  was  the  stipulation 
to  discontinue  the  criminal  prosecutions  against  Lachaise,  on  the  payment 
of  a  pecuniary  consideration,  which  formed  a  strong  inducement  in  the  con- 
clusion of  the  compromise  under  which  the  money  was  exported  from  the 
defendants. 

Mr.  Lachaise,  in  his  deposition  of  the  24th  of  June,  1841,  testifies  v 

follows:  "Although  I  was  not  guilty  of  the  charge*  preferred  agaiv*  a' 

by  the  indictments  which  had  been  found,  and  w-hkfo,  \YP*e  at  th  'tV"*6 

pending  against  me,  and  was  informed  by  my  couvsv'  thaUhese  ^osecT 

tions  against  me  could  not  be  sustained,  I  was  w   • -t^i  „  *• 

^   c        r     m        i  •         ,   .  /ertiieless  anxious,  on 

account  of  my  family  and  connexions,  that  the  •  ,roseclUl0ns  should  'not 

remain  suspended  over  me  ;  and  it  was  a  prtne    \a  inducement  with 

10  agreeing  to  pay  so  large  a  sum  of  money,  th  .at^hese  prosecutkms  shou,  j 


Eep.  No.  669.  109 


oe  dismissed  ;  and,  at  the  time  I  agreed  to  pay  the  money,  it  was  distinctly 
inderstood  that  they  should  be  dismissed."     These  indictments  were 
bund  on  the  testimony  of  Campbell  and  Davis,  who,  it  seems,  did  not 
lesitate  to  swear  to  every  fact  requisite  for  the  purpose  before  the  grand 
ury,  who  were  bound  to  secrecy  as  to  all  the  proceedings  and  evidence 
lad  before  them.    But,  when  called  on  by  Mr.  Hoyt  and  other  custom- 
house officers,  to  testify  publicly  in  open  court,  to  the  same  facts  on  which 
he  bills  of  indictment  were  found,  they  shrunk  from  the  responsibilty  of 
ncurring  the  odium  which  would  attach  to  them,  and  of  the  hazard  of 
'detection  for  false  swearing,  and  refused  to  carry  out  the  arrangement 
which,  Mr.  Hoyt  says,  was  made  with  them  by  himself  and  the  district 
attorney,  and  thereby  left  the  collector  in  a  hopeless  condition,  if  he  should 
urge  these  cases  to  trial  in  the  district  court.    Is  it  not  most  remarkable, 
and  most  humiliating  to  the  moral  character  of  the  country,  that  a  high 
officer  of  the  Government  should  openly  confess,  in  his  official  correspond- 
ence, that  his  only  reliance  to  convict  these  defendents,  either  in  the 
civil  suits  or  criminal  prosecutions  instituted  against  them,  was  on  the 
evidence  of  two  individuals,  who  undertook  to  swear  by  contract,  by 
'which  they  were  to  be  indemnified  and  protected  against  the  consequences 
of  their  own  crimes,  and  concerning  one  of  whom  Mr.  Hoyt  says  that  he 
as  ready  to  make  any  statement  to  serve  himself,  "without  reference  to 
ithe  truth  of  the  case."  Mr.  Butler,  in  his  report  of  these  cases,  which  he  did 
not  make  until  August  22, 1S39,  (see  Appendix  L,)  although  the  compromise 
took  place  on  the  2Sth  of  May  preceding,  cautiously  avoids  stating  any  spe- 
cific grounds  on  which  the  seizures  were  made  or  the  penal  bonds  were  al- 
leged to  be  forfeited,  but  he  furnishes  abundant  proof  that  there  was  no 
foundation  either  for  the  seizures  or  suits  on  the  penal  bonds,  or  for  duties 
unpaid.    He  says  in  one  part  of  his  report :  <fc  No  suit  was  brought  for  un- 
paid duties,  and  no  probable  ground  of  recovering,  in  any  such  suit,  could 
be  discovered ;"  and  he  then  discloses  the  flimsy  pretext  for  the  whole  of 
these  oppressive  and  iniquitous  proceedings.  He  adds :  "  From  the  course  of 
dealing  of  these  importers,  there  was  very  good  reason  to  suspect  that 
goods  had  been,  in  the  course  of  their  business,  frequently  entered  by  them 
at  a  fraudulent  undervaluation. "  This  suspicion,  unsupported  by  evidence, 
covered  the  whole  charge  against  the  claimants.    But  Mr.  Hoyt  and  the 
district  attorney  hoped  to  make  good  the  deficiency,  by  availing  themselves 
of  a  witness  who  might  be  relied  on  to  "  make  any  statement  to  serve  him- 
self, without  reference  to  the  truth  of  the  case."    Failing  in  this,  Mr.  Hoyt 
resorted  to  the  last  alternative  which  was  left  to  him,  to  harass  and  extort 
money  from  the  defendants,  by  withdrawing  "  the  cases  from  a  regular 
course  of  judicial  adjustment,"  and  by  alarming  Lachaise  with  menaces 
of  the  pending  criminal  prosecutions  against  him,  and  detaining  the  goods 
in  store,  where  they  would  in  a  short  time  have  become  utterly  valueless; 
and  thus,  by  operating  on  the  mind  of  one  who  knew  little  of  our  lan- 
guage, and  less  of  our  laws,  he  furnished  to  him  an  adequate  induce- 
ment to  make  a  great  pecuniary  sacrifice  of  the  interests  of  the  house  in 
Paris  for  whom  he  acted,  rather  than  remain  in  a  condition  in  which  his 
character  was  clouded  with  suspicion  at  home,  to  the  great  mortification  of 
his  family,  who  maintained  a  high  character  for  integrity,  and  to  the  great 
injury  of  his  credit  in  France,  which  constituted  the  largest  portion  of  his 
capital,  and  which,  at  the  time  of  his  emigration  to  this  country,  was  un- 
impaired.   By  these  means  Mr.  Hoyt  was  enabled  successfully  to  arrange 


110 


Rep.  No.  669. 


such  a  compromise  of  the  cases  as  would  fill  the  measure  of  his  avarice 
even  at  the  sacrifice  of  every  principle  of  justice  recognised  by  all  honor- 
able men  as  sacred  and  inviolable. 

The  original  design  of  the  seizures  and  prosecutions  having  been  thus 
consummated,  Mr.  Butler  complied  with  the  previous  requisition  of  the 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  by  making  a  report  to  that  office  of  the  origin 
and  progress  of  the  cases,  to  their  final  termination. 

In  this  report  he  admits  :  1st.  That  there  was  but  little  hope  of  obtaining 
any  evidence  on  which  the  dutiable  goods  could  be  condemned.  2d.  That, 
there  was  not  even  "  probable  ground"  to  recover  in  a  suit  for  unpaid 
duties.  3d.  That  there  was  not  the  slightest  evidence  to  recover  on  the 
information  against  the  free  goods,  amounting  to  forty  thousand  dollars, 
being  more  than  one-half  the  seizure.  4th.  That  no  recovery  could  have 
been  had  on  the  penal  bonds.  5th.  That  against  the  five  cases  of  goods 
seized  in  the  public  store,  while  they  were  under  the  examination  of  the  ap- 
praisers, he  could  not  discover  even  plausible  ground  for  the  seizure.  The 
whole  of  these  admissions  are  fully  endorsed  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  his  letter  to 
the  naval  officer  and  surveyor,  with  lamentations  over  the  two  faithless 
witnesses,  Campbell  and  Davis,  who,  to  the  great  discomfiture  of  the  col- 
lector, had  in  this  and  other  cases  violated  their  arrangement  with  him- 
self and  the  district  attorney,  by  refusing  to  swear  in  open  court,  according 
to  contract,  which  left  him  without  evidence,  in  the  final  trial,  on  which  he 
could  hope  for  success  before  the  district  court  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Butler,  it  will  be  seen,  admits  that  there  was  not  even  probable 
ground  for  recovering  any  alleged  unpaid  duties;  and  yet,inthe  arrangement 
by  which  the  round  sum  of  $47,500  was  exacted  from  the  defendants; 
under  the  compromise,  it  appears  that  one  item  paid  to  the  collector  was  ; 
$6,300,  for  duties  estimated  on  the  goods  seized — a  sum  which,  according 
to  Mr.  Butler's  admission,  could  not  have  been  recovered  in  a  court  of  jus- 
tice. The  sum  of  $18,968  37  was  paid  to  the  district  attorney,  on  penal  bonds 
alleged  to  have  been  forfeited  by  the  non-delivery  to  the  collector  of  a 
portion  of  the  same  goods  which  were  forcibly  taken  out  of  the  possession 
of  the  defendants,  before  they  were  demanded  by  the  collector  for  exami-  ■ 
nation  and  appraisement,  and  thereby  a  compliance  with  the  condition  of 
the  bonds  not  only  became  unnecessary,  but  was  rendered  by  the  act  of 
the  collector  utterly  impossible  on  the  part  of  the  defendants.    Both  the  i 
collector  and  the  district  attorney  expressed  opinions,  in  their  official  char-  , 
acter,  that  no  recovery  could  be  expected  on  these  penal  bonds  without 
the  evidence  of  Campbell  and  Davis;  and  yet  they  did  not  hesitate  to  ex-  i 
tort  from  these  Frenchmen,  who  believed  themselves  to  be  in  the  power  of 
the  collector,  the  enormous  sum  of  $18,968  37,  including  costs;  and  this 
amount  is  charged  as  accruing  on  the  forfeiture  of  these  bonds,  on  which, 
by  their  own  acknowledgments,  they  could  not  have  succeeded  in  recover- 
ing one  cent.    The  goods,  both  free  and  dutiable,  were  merged  in  one  item  I 
of  $21,000,  while  Mr.  Butler  informed  the  Solicitor  that,  as  to  the  free 
goods,  there  was  little  hope  of  their  condemnation;  and  Mr.  Hoyt  concurred 
in  this  opinion,  and  further  admits  that,  against  the  dutiable  goods,  he 
could  obtain  no  evidence  to  condemn  them,  except  the  testimony  of  his  two 
witnesses,  Campbell  and  Davis,  who  had  refused  to  testify.    But  this  sum  i 
also  was  extorted  in  the  face  of  these  admissions,  as  Mr.  Butler  states,  to 
inflict  on  the  defendants  what  he  is  pleased  to  denominate  "punitive 
justice" 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Ill 


To  these  large  items  may  be  added  the  most  enormous  bills  of  costs  to 
the  clerk,  the  marshal,  and  district  attorney,  in  the  distribution  of  which 
Mr.  Butler  took  especial  care  of  himself,  by  charging  a  large  amount  for  tax- 
ed fees,  and  one  item  for  costs  to  the  district  attorney,  besides  a  counsel  fee 
of  #500,  which  he  considered  very  reasonable,  although  it  is  neither  justi- 
fied by  law  nor  sanctioned  by  the  practice  of  the  courts,  at  any  antecedent 
period.  To  cover  these  transactions  with  the  appearance  of  judicial  au- 
thority, the  precaution  was  taken,  by  the  collector  and  district  attorney,  of 
entering  on  the  records  consent  decrees,  when,  in  point  of  fact,  they  were 
decrees  agreed  to  by  the  defendants  under  the  pressure  of  the  arbitrary 
power  of  the  collector,  to  which  was  superadded  the  strong  inducement 
■  held  out  to  them  of  entering  on  the  three  indictments  nolle  prosequis ;  which 
was  accordingly  done,  by  stipulation,  for  a  pecuniary  consideration.  Mr. 
Butler  claims  for  these  proceedings,  not  only  the  approval  but  the  high 
commendation  of  the  Treasury  Department.  He  concludes  his  official 
report  to  the  Solicitor  in  the  following  words  :  "  Under  all  the  circum- 
stances of  the  case,  looking  to  the  nature  of  the  proofs,  to  the  probable  de- 
terioration of  the  goods,  even  in  the  event  of  the  condemnation  of  all  of 
them,  and  to  the  contingencies  of  the  insolvency  of  the  parties  in  the  per- 
sonal actions  on  the  penal  bonds,  and  other  hazards,  I  deemed  it  not  only 
exceedingly  beneficial  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States  to  dispose  of 
the  subject  on  these  terms,  but  as  accomplishing,  so  far  as  could  be  expect- 
ed, all  the  ends  of  punitive  justice;  and  with  that  view,  on  my  own  mo- 
tion, though  after  a  consultation  with  the  district  judge,  I  also  entered 
nolle  prosequis  on  certain  criminal  prosecutions  which  had  been  instituted 
against  Lachaise,  one  of  the  importers,  and  which  grew  out  of  the  same 
transaction  which  gave  rise  to  the  above  proceedings."  The  true  and  only 
interpretation  which  can  be  put  on  this  appeal  to  the  Government  for  its 
approbation  is  pecuniary  gain,  obtained  by  duplicity  and  management, 
out  of  court,  which  could  not  have  been  recovered  in  a  fair  and  impartial 
trial.  The  reasons  assigned  by  the  district  attorney  for  entering  into  the 
arrangements  which  had  been  made  with  the  defendants  may  be  com- 
prised in  the  following  summary  : 

1st.  Looking  at  the  nature  of  the  proofs,  which  he  before  stated  were 
entirely  insufficient  to  condemn  the  goods.  2d.  To  the  deterioration  of  the 
goods  occasioned  by  their  seizure  and  long  detention  in  the  custody  of  the 
marshal,  they  being  chiefly  fancy  goods,  which  had  gone  out  of  fashion, 
and  therefore  would  not  bring  the  sum  at  which  they  were  appraised,  even 
in  the  event  of  their  condemnation.  3d.  The  contingency  of  the  insolvency 
of  the  parties,  in  the  personal  action  on  the  penal  bonds,  in  case  of  a 
recovery  on  these  bonds,  which  both  himself  and  the  collector  had  de- 
clared to  be  impossible,  for  the  want  of  evidence,  and  other  hazards  not 
mentioned.  On  these  postnlata,  Mr.  Butler  deemed  it  not  only  exceedingly 
beneficial  to  the  interests  of  the  United  States  to  dispose  of  the  subject  on 
the  terms  exacted  from  the  defendants,  but  as  accomplishing,  as  far  as 
could  be  expected,  all  the  ends  of  punitive  justice.  This  punishment, 
which  was  deemed  so  appropriate  by  the  district  attorney,  was  innjeted 
on  the  defendants,  by  extorting  money  from  them  without  proof,  without 
trial,  and  without  the  judgment  of  a  court  of  competent  jurisdiction,  and  as 
a  consideration  for  the  discontinuance  of  criminal  prosecutions  for  crimes 
alleged  against  Armand  Lachaise,  one  of  the  firm  of  Lachaise  &  Fouche, 
of  which  had  he  been  found  guilty  by  the  verdict  of  a  jury,  would  have 


112  Rep.  No.  669. 

subjected  him  to  the  legitimate  punishment  of  heavy  penalties,  and  incar- 
ceration in  the  common  jail  or  penitentiary  for  such  length  of  time  as 
might  have  been  adjudged  by  the  sentence  of  the  court.    To  compromise 
a  criminal  prosecution,  for  pecuniary  rewards,  is  itself  a  crime  of  no  small 
magnitude.    According  to  the  principles  of  the  common  law,  such  a  case 
is  believed  to  be  almost  without  precedent  in  the  judicial  annals  of  Eng- 
land, (from  which  country  our  system  of  jurisprudence  is  drawn,)  or  of  the 
United  States,  or  of  any  State  composing  the  Confederacy.    But  this  com- 
promise of  criminal  proceedings  against  Armand  Lachaise,  avowedly  in 
consideration  of  the  payment  of  money  to  the  district  attorney  and  collect-  , 
or  of  the  port  of  New  York,  is  openly  acknowledged  by  these  high  officers  , 
of  the  Government  in  their  correspondence  with  the  Treasury  Department, 
and  is  moreover  charged  to  have  received  the  sanction  of  the  district  judge 
of  the  southern  district  of  New  York,  on  an  application  made  to  him  for  , 
that  purpose  by  Mr.  Butler,  the  district  attorney.    It  is  a  well-established  . 
principle,  recognised  in  the  criminal  code  of  all  civilized  countries,  that,  in 
prosecutions  for  crimes  or  penalties,  the  accused  is  to  be  held  innocent  un- 
til the  contrary  shall  appear,  by  clear  and  satisfactory  legal  testimony  ;  and 
in  case  a  reasonable  doubt  exists  on  the  minds  of  the  court  and  jury  of  the 
guilt  of  the  accused,  the  humanity  of  the  law  inclines  to  his  acquittal. 
Governments  are  presumed  to  be  exempt  from  the  influence  of  vindictive 
passions,  in  all  prosecutions  of  a  person  charged  with  the  commission  of 
crimes  or  with  the  breach  of  the  penal  laws.    Punishments  are  graduated  i 
to  the  nature,  of  offences,  so  as  to  put  an  end  to  future  perpetrations  of  , 
crimes  by  the  terrors  which  they  hold  out  to  others  in  like  cases  offending. 
No  motive  of  vengeance  or  hope  of  pecuniary  gains  is  ever  permitted  to  { 
operate  on  judicial  tribunals,  in  trials  to  which  the  Government  is  a  party, 
against  a  citizen  or  subject  brought  before  such  tribunals.    These  humane  . 
maxims  of  the  common  law  are  familiar  to  the  great  body  of  the  Ameri- 
can people,  and  are  never  departed  from  in  our  courts  of  criminal  jurisdic- 
tion, who  delight  in  the  innocence  of  the  accused,  rather  than  in  his  guilt 
and  consequent  punishment.    But  this  case  introduces  a  new  rule,  and  in- 
verts the  ancient  law  on  this  subject,  by  inflicting  penalties  and  forfeitures,  j 
where  innocence  or  the  absence  of  proof  of  guilt  is  admitted,  by  com-  i 
muting  alleged  crimes  of  the  highest  grade,  in  consideration  of  money  paid 
to  the  Government  and  prosecutor,  pro  rata,  and  by  offering  indemnity  to  j 
crimes  committed  by  official  delinquents,  on  condition  that  they  will  con- 
sent to  testify  to  their  own  infamy  in  open  court,  and  thereby  implicate 
others  on  a  charge  of  violating  the  revenue  laws  of  the  country.  This 
new  sciola  of  public  morals  has  recently  sprung  into  existence  at  the  New 
York  custom-house;  and,  what  is  still  more  to  be  deplored,  it  has  received 
the  approving  sanction  of  the  head  of  the  Treasury  Department  for  the 
time  being.    The  facts  are  undeniable,  drawn  as  they  are  from  official 
documents  ;  and  it  remains  to  be  seen  how  far  such  a  system  of  corruption 
and  oppression  will  be  rebuked  by  the  future  action  of  this  Government. 

Analogous  to  this  case  of  Lachaise  &  Fouche  is  that  of  De  Casse  &  Miege, 
differing  only  in  its  details  and  results.  The  facts  and  circumstances  attend- 
ing this  case  will  be  found  in  the  correspondence  (see  Appendix  M)  of  Mr. 
Hoyt,  the  collector,  with  this  house,  and  their  replies,  which  forms  a  part 
of  the  appendix  to  this  report.  The  deposition  of  Lewis  De  Casse,  one  of 
the  firm,  may  also  be  referred  to  for  the  particulars  concerning  the  seizure 
and  detention  of  their  goods,  by  order  of  the  collector.    It  appears  that 


Rep.  No.  669.  113 


these  goods  consisted  almost  wholly  of  French  silks  and  other  articles  of 
merchandise,  which  at  that  time  were  free  of  duty.    A  small  portion  of 
them  were  dutiable,  on  which  the  duties  had  been  paid  at  the  custom- 
house.   The  seizure  was  made  without  affidavit  or  warrant,  both  of  which 
are  expressly  required  by  law.    Mr.  Hoyt  first  sent  his  pioneer,  Wasson,  to 
rexamine  the  goods,  and  report  to  him,  if  there  appeared  any  thing  wrong 
after  such  examination.    He  could  find  nothing  suspicious  about  the  goods, 
fout  reported  that  every  thing  was  fair,  according  to  the  entries  and  invoices. 
Mr.  Hoyt  then  gave  a  peremptory  order  to  Bleecker,  another  custom-house 
officer,  to  seize  the  goods,  without  examination,  and  send  them  to  the  pub- 
lic store ;  which  order  was  executed,  and  the  seizure  thus  made,  not  in 
conformity  to  law,  but  under  the  dictum  of  the  collector.    The  next  step 
was  a  proposition  for  a  compromise.    For  this  purpose,  Mr.  Hoyt  in- 
structed the  district  attorney  to  suspend  proceedings,  both  civil  and  crimi- 
nal, for  one  day.    The  proposition  was  indignantly  rejected  by  De  Casse 
-&  Miege.    The  goods  were  then  libelled,  on  no  other  assumed  ground 
than  an  allegation  that  the  penal  bonds  had  been  forfeited,  by  opening 
some  of  the  packages  without  the  consent  of  the  collector.    This  allega- 
tion, if  true,  did  not  affect  the  goods,  but  subjected  the  parties  to  suits  on 
the  penal  bonds  for  a  forfeiture.    But  the  collector  proceeded  to  institute 
suits  on  these  bonds,  and  at  the  same  time  put  the  goods  under  seizure, 
without  assigning  any  other  cause  than  the  supposed  forfeiture  of  the 
bonds.    The  next  expedient  resorted  to  by  the  collector,  to  alarm  these 
men  into  a  compromise,  was  an  attempt  to  prosecute  them,  criminally,  as 
he  had  done  in  the  case  of  Lachaise  &  Fouche.    An  indictment  was  ac- 
cordingly preferred  before  the  grand  jury, and  the  two  witnesses  on  whose 
testimony  indictments  had  been  found  against  Armand  Lachaise  were 
sent  before  them,  but  their  character  had  become  so  infamous  and  so  gen- 
erally known  to  the  courts  and  juries  of  New  York,  that  the  indictment 
was  thrown  out  by  the  grand  jury.    The  first  suit  instituted  against  De 
Casse  &  Miege  was  for  the  recovery  of  duties  alleged  to  be  unpaid.  In 
this  suit,  bail  was  demanded  and  given ;  but  the  act  of  Congress  abolish- 
ing imprisonment  for  debt  having  passed,  the  bail  was  released,  and  the 
defendants  only  held  responsible  in  case  of  a  recovery  in  this  action.  Mr. 
Hoyt  then  resorted  to  the  bloody  66th,  and  instructed  the  district  attorney 
to  discontinue  the  suit  for  unpaid  duties,  and  commence  a  new  action  for 
a  forfeiture  of  the  goods  under  the  above  section  of  the  act  of  1799.  He 
states  to  the  district  attorney  that,  "  1.  The  defendants  can  be  held  to  bail ; 
and,  as  they  are  foreigners,  it  is  quite  probable  they  would  leave  this  coun- 
try to  avoid  the  payment  of  a  large  debt,  if  it  was  their  intention  to  do  so ; 
2.  The  facilities  for  recovering  I  consider  much  greater,  for  reasons  which 
have  frequently  been  a  matter  of  conversation  between  us  ;  3.  The  house 
having  become  insolvent,  we  have  but  little  chance  of  getting  any  thing 
for  the  claim,  except  by  some  arrangement  in  the  nature  of  compromise. 
The  grand  jury  having  refused  to  find  bills  of  indictment  against  them  for 
fraud,  and  Congress  having  exempted  them  from  imprisonment  for  debt, 
as  they  supposed,  they  would  not  probably  make  so  liberal  an  offer,  by 
way  of  compromise,  as  they  would  do  if  they  had  an  intimation  of  the 
efficiency  of  the  66th  section  in  the  form  of  a  legal  proceeding  under  it. 
I  make  the  suggestions  for  your  serious  consideration." 

This  extract  from  the  letter  of  Mr.  Hoyt  discloses  the  devices  and  tricks 
to  which  he  resorted,  in  this  case  and  all  others,  to  bring  about  the  chief 
3 


114  Rep.  No.  669. 

design  of  all  his  seizures — a  compromise,  on  the  best  terms  practicable,, 
with  importers  of  foreign  merchandise,  especially  in  cases  where  he  had 
but  little  hope  of  recovering  any  thing  in  a  regular  course  of  judicial  pro- 
ceeding.  To  accomplish  this  purpose,  it  was  his  practice  to  institute  crim- 
inal prosecutions,  as  a  coercive  measure,  to  bring  about  these  compromises, 
which  were  abandoned  on  the  payment  of  the  sum  stipulated.  His  at- 
tempt, in  this  case,  to  procure  the  finding  of  a  bill  of  indictment  having 
failed,  his  next  expedient  was  to  hold  the  defendants  to  heavy  bail,  in  an 
action  for  a  forfeiture  of  the  goods ;  and  this,  he  hoped,  would  induce  the 
defendants  to  run  away,  and  leave  their  case  undefended.  The  house,  in 
the  mean  time,  having  become  bankrupt,  they  had  no  further  interest  in 
claiming  the  goods;  which,  being  abandoned,  they  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  collector  without  a  struggle. 

In  three  of  the  cases  of  compromises  made  with  the  importers  of  wool- 
lens in  the  year  1839,  the  conditions  on  which  Mr.  Hoyt  extorted  money 
from  these  importers  were  violated  by  him.    He  stipulated,  as  appears  by 
the  deposition  of  C.  W.  Dayton,  to  permit  all  the  goods  in  store  belongings 
to  or  consigned  to  such  importers  as  might  agree  to  his  terms  of  compro- 
mise, and  pay  the  amount  agreed  on  to  him,  to  be  entered  without  further- 
interruption.    But  in  the  cases  of  William  Bottomly,  Samuel  Bradbury,, 
and  George  Shaw,  after  receiving  the  sums  demanded  of  them,  respectively, 
he  caused  a  large  amount  of  woollens  in  store,  belonging  to  them,  to  be 
seized,  for  the  purpose  of  exacting  new  compromises  from  them  ;  and  ac- 
tually exacted  from  Samuel  Bradbury  twelve  cases  of  woollens,  in  addition 
to  the  sum  already  paid  by  him,  as  a  condition  on  which  he  might  be  per- 
mitted to  enter  goods  at  the  custom-house.    George  Shaw  having  refused 
propositions  of  compromise,  his  case  was  brought  to  trial,  and  a  verdict 
rendered  against  the  United  States.    The  case  of  William  Bottomly,  who- 
also  refused  the  terms  of  the  new  compromise  offered  by  the  collector,  is 
still  pending  in  court,  and  undetermined.    One  other  case  of  compro- 
mise remains  to  be  noticed,  in  connexion  with  those  heretofore  commented 
on.    In  the  spring  of  1S38,  Mr.  Hoyt  made  a  seizure  of  fifteen  cases  of 
woollens,  imported  by  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  in  the  ship  Roscoe,  from  Liv- 
erpool.   The  trial  of  this  case  took  place  in  the  district  court,  in  the  month 
of  January,  1S39,  and  the  goods  were  condemned,  principally  on  the  testi- 
mony of  George  R.  Ives,  one  of  the  standing  witnesses  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  of 
whom  mention  has  been  heretofore  made.    In  the  progress  of  the  trials 
exceptions  were  taken,  by  the  counsel  for  the  claimant,  to  the  opinion  of 
the  district  judge  on  certain  legal  points,  on  which  the  final  decision  of  the 
case  was  supposed  to  depend.    In  this  situation,  the  case  was  taken  up  to 
the  circuit  court.    But  the  collector,  having  put  under  seizure  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty-nine  pieces  of  woollens  belonging  to  James  Bottomly,  jr., 
which  remained  in  store,  without  any  legal  proceedings  having  been  taken 
against  them,  proposed  to  relinquish  these  goods,  provided  the  appeal  on  the- 
fifteen  cases,  which  had  been  condemned,  was  withdrawn,  and  the  verdict 
condemning  them  permitted  to  remain  in  full  force.    These  terms  were 
agreed  to  by  Mr.  Bottomly,  as  the  only  means  by  which  he  could  obtain  pos- 
session of  the  two  hundred  and  fifty-nine  pieces  seized  and  in  store,  subject 
to  any  delay  in  bringing  them  to  trial  which  might  suit  the  caprice  of  the  col- 
lector.   Mr.  Hoyt  made  a  report  of  these  cases  to  the  Solicitor  and  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  in  which  the  following  statement  appears :  "  The 
two  hundred  and  fifty-nine  pieces  of  cloths  taken  from  the  store  of  Bot- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


115 


tomly  were  delivered  to  his  agent  on  the  23d  of  May  instant,  as  will  be 
hereafter  stated." 

•'The  15  cases  of  woollens  of  Bottomly  were  tried  in  January  last,  and 
were  condemned  by  the  court  on  the  verdict  of  the  jury,  having  been  long 
before  bonded  under  the  act  of  1799,  when  the  duties  were  paid,  amount- 
ing to  $2,S70.  The  counsel  for  the  claimants  took  a  bill  of  exceptions  to 
the  ruling  of  the  court  on  some  points  of  law  raised,  but  which  was  aban- 
doned a  few  days  since,  on  the  condition  that  we  should  relinquish  the 
259  pieces  of  cloth.  We  ivere  glad  to  make  the  arrangement ,  for  this 
reason:  that  we  had  no  proof  to  condemn  them,  and  quite  a  scanty  pat- 
tern on  which  to  claim  from  the  court  a  certificate  of  probable  cause. 
Thus  the  seizure  and  detention  in  store  of  the  259  pieces  of  cloth,  con- 
fessedly made  without  even  probable  cause,  was  turned  to  good  account 
by  Mr.  Hoyt,  by  making  his  own  illegal  and  oppressive  act  the  basis  of  a 
compulsory  compromise,  under  which  he  gained  the  15  cases  of  woollens, 
the  fate  of  which  he  had  good  reason  to  doubt,  if  the  appeal  to  the  circuit 
court  had  been  prosecuted  on  the  points  of  law  raised  at  the  trial  in  the 
district  court.'-' 

It  is  not  doubted  that  the  revenue  is  liable  to  be  defrauded  by  the  arts 
and  devices  of  foreign  importers,  and  a  knowledge  that  such  practices 
have  existed,  and  will  exist  to  a  certain  extent  at  all  times,  has  led  to  the 
enactment  of  a  system  of  revenue  laws,  with  adequate  penal  sanctions,  to 
punish  and  prevent  their  recurrence,  as  far  as  practicable.  The  duty  of 
executing  and  enforcing  these  laws  devolves  on  the  officers  of  the  customs 
and  the  courts  of  justice,  and  a  proper  vigilance  in  the  discharge  of  these 
duties  cannot  be  too  highly  commended.  But  when,  under  color  of  official 
authority,  means  are  resorted  to,  not  for  the  purpose  of  punishing  the  guilty, 
by  a  due  and  rigid  execution  of  the  laws,  but  to  embarrass  foreign  com- 
merce, and  extort  money  as  a  condition  on  which  importers  of  foreign 
merchandise  may  be  permitted  to  enter  their  goods  at  the  custom-house 
and  pay  the  duties  which  may  be  assessed  on  them,  the  exercise  of  such 
illegal  and  arbitrary  powers  becomes  oppressive,  and,  of  necessity,  must 
result  to  diminish  the  amount  of  importations,  and  in  the  same  proportion 
to  reduce  the  revenue  derived  from  imposts.  It  has  already  been  shown,, 
by  evidence  drawn  from  the  official  correspondence  of  Mr.  Hoyt  and  the 
district  attorney  with  the  Treasury  Department,  that,  in  every  case  of  com- 
promise which  he  was  enabled  by  the  use  of  his  power,  as  collector,  to 
enforce  on  foreign  importers,  there  was  no  legal  testimony  on  which  he 
could  rely  to  convict  them  of  the  offence  charged  or  pretended  to  be 
charged  against  them. 

On  this  ground  Mr.  Hoyt  places  the  necessity  of  these  compromises,  and 
claims  great  credit  to  himself  for  having  in  this  manner  obtained  more 
money  than  he  could  have  received  if  he  had  remained  in  court ;  and  fur- 
ther adds  his  opinion,  that  this  is  the  best  mode  of  punishing  importers  of 
foreign  merchandise.  In  private  transactions,  between  individuals,  such 
conduct  could  be  regarded  in  no  other  light  than  as  downright  swindling 
and  would  be  deemed  sufficient  to  expel  the  man  who  perpetrated  the  act 
from  the  ranks  of  honorable  men.  But  Mr.  Hoyt  found  favor  with  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  who  not  only  approved  this  scheme  of  arresting 
judicial  proceedings  in  transitu  on  suits  and  prosecutions  instituted  on 
mere  suspicion  of  fraud,  without  any  pretence  that  evidence  could  be  pro- 
duced on  the  trials  to  convict  the  defendants,  because,  in  the  opinion  of  the 


116 


Rep.  No.  669. 


collector  and  district  attorney,  a  "  much  larger  sum  was  received  out  of 
court  than  could  have  been  obtained  by  remaining  in,"  and  because  Mr. 
Hoyt's  experience  with  courts  and  juries,  in  judicial  adjustments,  led  him 
to  "distrust  the  nature  of  sucli  adjustments."  Thus  the  laws  were  set  at 
defiance;  the  interposition  of  courts  of  justice,  to  carry  the  laws  into  effect, 
disregarded  and  contemned,  and  the  management  of  the  collector  and  dis- 
trict attorney,  out  of  court,  substituted  in  lieu  of  those  safeguards  placed 
around  the  rights  of  persons  and  of  property,  who  regulated  the  mode  and 
measure  of  punishment  for  alleged  breaches  of  the  revenue  laws,  according 
to  their  own  discretion,  and  then  turn  round  and  boast  that  they  have  ex- 
acted penalties,  out  of  court,  without  evidence,  which  could  not  have  been, 
obtained  by  remaining  in  court.  To  all  this  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
informs  Mr.  Hoyt  he  "can  see  no  grounds  of  objection."  Such  a  code  of 
morals,  thus  sanctioned  and  recommended  to  officers  of  the  customs  by  a 
high  public  functionary,  having  charge  of  the  fiscal  affairs  of  the  Govern- 
ment, when  brought  into  operation  in  our  commercial  intercourse  with 
foreign  Powers,  must  meet  the  indignant  reprobation  of  the  civilized  world. 

These  novel  and  extraordinary  proceedings  were  professedly  designed 
to  protect  the  revenue  against  fraudulent  invoices,  undervaluations  of  for- 
eign merchandise  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the  duties,  and  other  frauds 
on  the  revenue,  and  thereby  place  the  honest  merchant  on  a  footing  of  fair 
competition  with  foreign  importers.  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  one  of  his  letters  to  the 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  on  the  subject  of  seizures  and  compromises,  con- 
gratulates the  Government  and  himself  with  the  assurance,  that,  if  he  had 
done  nothing  more  by  these  embarrassments  thrown  in  the  way  of  foreign 
commerce,  he  had  "  at  least  broken  down  that  branch  of  trade,  and  opened 
it  to  the  fair  and  honest  merchant  and  manufacturer."  Most  truly  spoken  ! 
If  this  branch  of  trade  was  not  entirely  annihilated,  it  was  reduced,  to  an 
extent  which  has  been  most  severely  felt,  in  the  diminished  receipts  into 
the  Treasury  from  the  customs  at  the  port  of  New  York,  and  other  cities 
into  which  he  carried  his  unprecedented  system  of  seizures,  especially  in 
regard  to  that  portion  of  the  imposts  derived  from  the  importations  of  for- 
eign woollens. 

Mr.  Samuel  Lawrence,  a  manufacturer  of  woollens  in  Lowell,  in  his 
deposition,  taken  before  the  commissioners,  states  that,  since  the  year  1839, 
"  a  very  moderate  business  has  been  done ;  and,  from  all  I  can  gather, 
there  are  less  woollen  goods  from  England  in  the  country,  and  on  their 
way,  than  for  many  years  past."  The  same  witness,  in  reply  to  a  ques- 
tion whether  foreign  importers  of  woollens  into  that  port  were  not  driven 
to  remove  their  business  to  New  York,  in  consequence  of  their  goods  being 
habitually  put  up  to  a  high  standard  of  value,  and  seized,  on  the  ground  of 
fraudulent  invoices  or  undervaluations  at  the  place  whence  imported,  says: 
aI  do  not  know,  of  my  own  knowledge,  of  -any  Yorkshireman,  or  other 
foreign  importer,  who  was  driven  from  Boston  by  having  his  goods  put  up 
by  the  appraisers,  and  went  to  New  York  for  the  reason  that  he  could  do 
business  at  the  New  York  custom-house  at  a  less  rate  of  duties;  but  I  have 
always  believed  such  ivas  the  fact."  In  this  manner  the  importation  of 
woollens  was  broken  up  in  Boston,  where  they  came  into  competition  with 
the  domestic  fabric  of  the  same  class,  and,  through  the  medium  of  the  col- 
lector of  the  port  of  New  York,  they  were  pursued  for  the  same  purpose ; 
and,  by  the  same  influences,  the  standard  of  value  was  raised,  seizures 
made,  and  money  extorted  from  the  importers,  until  the  object  of  expelling 


Rep.  No.  669. 


117 


foreign  woollens  from  the  country  was  so  far  accomplished  as  to  give  the 
command  of  the  market  almost  entirely  to  the  domestic  manufacturer.7' 

To  demonstrate  the  effect  on  the  revenue  of  these  combined  operations, 
the  testimony  of  John  Harris,  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  an  exten- 
sive importer  of  woollens  from  England  for  many  years  past,  is  referred  to. 
He  says :  "  The  seizures  and  obstructions  at  the  custom-house  have  pre- 
vented the  importation  of  $3,000,000  worth  of  woollen  cloths  yearly  since 
Mr.  Hoyt  came  into  office,  the  duty  upon  which  would  have  been  from 
111,200,000  to  $1,500,000.  At  the  fire  in  the  public  store,  Front  street, 
(January,  1840,)  there  was  not  less  than  $1,000,000,  almost  all  cloths,  de- 
stroyed, the  duty  upon  which  would  have  been  from  $400,000  to  $500,000. 
This  loss  of  property  took  place  entirely  in  consequence  of  the  importers 
being  deterred  from  entering  their  goods,  from  an  apprehension  of  seizures. 
Had  the  goods  been  entered,  the  Government  would  have  got  its  duties, 
and  the  whole  property,  with  the  duties  and  expenses  upon  them,  would 
have  been  sold  to  the  merchants  of  the  city  at  a  credit  of  eight  months,  or 
more ;  and  at  the  time,  the  commercial  difficulties  and  distresses  of  the  city 
being  very  great,  it  would  have  most  materially  relieved  them.  -  The  Gov- 
ernment also,  it  was  stated  at  the  time,  was  greatly  pressed  for  immediate 
means ;  and  the  duties  upon  those  goods  that  were  burnt  would  have  ren- 
dered it  considerable  relief,  the  duties  upon  woollens  being  payable  in 
cash." 

The  deposition  of  this  witness  furnishes  extensive  and  accurate  infor- 
mation on  a  great  variety  of  subjects  relating  to  the  interruptions  of  com- 
merce at  the  period  above  mentioned,  and  is  therefore  recommended  par- 
ticularly to  the  attention  of  the  Government.  On  the  same  subject,  Mr. 
Lounsberry,  an  assistant  appraiser  in  the  woollens  loft,  was  asked  by 
the  commissioners  :  "  What  has  been  the  effect  of  the  conduct  of  the 
collector,  Hoyt,  and  of  Cairns,  in  the  importation  of  woollens,  and  in  that 
branch  of  trade  generally?"  To  which  he  replied  :  "The  effect  has  been, 
in  some  instances,  to  prevent  the  merchants  from  importing  goods  entirely; 
in  other  cases  the  amount  is  sensibly  diminished,  or  else  the  importer  has 
been  compelled  to  confine  himself  to  free  goods.  The  effect  on  the  reve- 
nue^ as  far  as  I  could  judge  from  the  invoices — all  of  which  have  to  pass 
our  loft — is  sensibly  diminished  in  consequence  of  the  decrease  of  the  im- 
portation of  woollens.  Many  of  the  largest  merchants  have  said  that  they 
dare  not  import  goods  any  more,  there  was  so  much  trouble  in  passing 
them  by  Cairns.  There  were  but  few  importers  of  English  low-priced 
woollens,  except  the  Yorkshiremen.  Labron  &  Ives  were  almost  the  only 
Amerxan  house  that  imported  that  style  of  goods."  In  this  opinion  all 
the  foreign  importers  of  woollens  concur;  and  Mr.  Bottomly,  who  is  among 
the  largest  of  these  importers,  states,  in  his  deposition  taken  by  the  com- 
missioners, as  follows:  "  The  effect  on  my  own  business  has  been  disastrous 
in  the  extreme.  Mr.  Hoyt  has  taken  from  me  the  principal  part  of  all  the 
property  I  possessed,  so  as  to  prevent  my  doing  business  on  my  own  ac- 
count. The  decrease  in  my  importations  has  been  at  least  one-half.  The 
difference  in  the  amount  of  duties  paid  by  me  since  the  time  I  first  had 
difficulty  at  the  custom-house,  in  consequence  of  the  obstacles  thrown  in 
the  way  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  is  not  less  than  $200,000  in  the  space  of  less  than 
two  years.  The  effect  on  many  of  the  foreign  English  importers  of  simi- 
lar kinds  of  goods  to  my  own,  has  been  to  ruin  about  one-third  of  them, 
or  to  cripple  them  so  as  to  prevent  their  doing  business  to  any  extent.  A 


118 


Rep.  No.  669. 


large  number  of  the  manufacturers  in  England  were  also  ruined,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  fact  that  the  importers  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  were  un- 
able to  meet  their  engagements,  and  are  still  unable,  in  consequence  of  the 
seizure  of  the  goods  in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  after  they  had  been 
entered,  and  the  duties  paid,  and  all  the  forms  of  law  complied  with  ; 
which  took  place  about  two  years  since,  and  the  cases  have  not  yet  come 
to  an  ultimate  trial.  The  result  of  all  these  cases,  whether  favorable  to 
the  claimant  or  otherwise,  will  be  almost  equally  disastrous.  His  property 
is  locked  up,  and  his  credit  is  gone  ;  and  if  the  laws  of  the  United  States 
are  such  as  to  allow  the  condemnation  or  even  seizure  of  goods,  after  hav- 
ing been  regularly  entered,  and  gone  through  all  the  requirements  of  law, 
no  foreigner  will  dare  to  ship  goods,  under  any  circumstances.  I  have 
been  in  England  previous  to  and  since  the  sitting  of  this  commission, 
and  have  never  seen  goods  so  cheap  as  at  the  present  time.  I  could  have 
procured  consignments  to  the  amount  of  $1,000,000  for  this  season,  and 
even  more,  if  I  could  have  assured  the  consignees  that  they  would  not  be 
seized  after  they  had  passed  the  custom-house,  and  the  duties  thereon  had 
been  paid.7' 

This  evidence,  if  it  stood  alone,  would  be  sufficient  to  awaken  the 
Government  to  the  deleterious  effects  on  the  public  revenue  of  the  oppres- 
sive and  illegal  acts  of  Mr.  Hoyt  on  the  commerce  of  the  country :  but  it 
is  strongly  sustained  by  the  diminished  amount  of  importations  for  the 
year  1840,  compared  with  the  imports  into  New  York  for  the  preceding 
year,  especially  in  the  article  of  foreign  woollens.  It  appears  by  the  official 
reports  of  the  custom-house  officers  in  New  York  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  that — 

The  whole  amount  of  imports  for  the  year  1839  was  $97,07S,687 
And  for  the  year  1840       .....  56,845,924 


Making  a  deficit  of  -----  40,232,763 

In  this  general  estimate  of  the  decline  of  foreign  commerce  at  the  port 
of  New  York,  it  may  be  proper  to  remark  that,  of  goods  imported  from 
England  and  France,  subject  to  an  ad  valorem  duty,  the  diminution 
amounted  to  50  per  cent,  in  value.  This  class  of  goods  had  been  selected 
by  the  collector  for  the  operation  of  his  system  of  seizures  and  compro- 
mises ;  and  it  is  therefore  not  wonderful  that  the  importers  of  them  should 
have  become  alarmed  at  the  hazard  which  they  incurred  in  the  prosecu- 
tion of  their  business,  seeing  that  their  goods  were  not  secure  in  their 
hands,  even  after  they  had  passed  the  custom-house  on  the  payment  of 
duties,  and  were  delivered  to  them  according  to  the  provisions  of  our  own 
laws.  The  importation  of  woollens  for  the  year  1839  was  uncommonly 
large,  while  that  of  the  succeeding  year  amounted  almost  to  nothing ;  but 
yet  it  appears,  by  the  entries  at  the  custom-house,  that  in  the  year  1839 
the  entry  of  cloths  and  cassimeres  amounted  to  $4,6 12,366,  and  for  the 
year  1840,  $4,242,161. 

This  near  approach  to  equality  was  the  result  of  the  action  of  the  col- 
lector on  this  class  of  importations.  He  refused  to  admit  them  to  entry 
until  late  in  the  fall  of  1839,  and  in  many  instances  the  importers  were 
deterred  from  entering  their  goods  by  the  fear  of  seizures,  which  they  had 
reason  to  apprehend,  from  the  constant  practice  of  the  collector  in  such 
cases,  with  or  without  cause.    Mr.  Hoyt  having  made  most  of  his  com- 


Eep.  No.  669. 


119 


rpromises  after  the  first  day  of  October,  1S39,  the  goods  previously  de- 
tained in  store  and  refused  the  privilege  of  entry  were  entered  at  the 
•cnstom-honse  as  of  the  importation  of  1S40;  and  thus  the  amount  of  im- 
ports that  year  of  cloths  and  cassimeres  was  swelled  to  an  amount  almost 
equal  to  the  year  1839,  while,  in  fact,  they  fell  below  the  imports  of  any 
preceding  year.  The  amount  of  exports  during  these  two  years  from  the 
United  States  to  all  parts  of  the  world,  were  as  follows  : 
In  the  year  1839  -----  $121,028,416 

In  the  year  1840  -----  132,085,946^ 

Making  an  increase  of  -  11,057,530 

Which  ought  to  have  given,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  trade,  a  correspond- 
ing increase  of  importations. 

Hut  the  actual  amount  paid  into  the  Treasury  from  imposts 

collected  at.  the  port  of  New  York  for  1839  was  -  #14,642,408  67 

And  for  the  year  1840      -  -  -  -  -      6,990,643  14 


Being  a  falling  off,  in  one  year,  at  this  single  port,  of 

the  revenue  derived  from  imposts,  of         -  7,651,765  53 


That  this  result  was  in  a  great  measure  produced  by  the  arbitrary  and 
♦  oppressive  conduct  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector,  in  the  execution  of  his  well- 
matured  and  organized  system  of  seizures  and  compromises,  does  not 
admit  of  a  reasonable  doubt.  But  he  commenced  this  system  with  assur- 
ances to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that  it  was  indispensable  to  the 
security  of  the  public  revenue  against  the  frauds  which  he  suspected,  and 
had  good  reason  to  believe,  had  for  a  long  time  been  committed  at  the 
custom-house  in  New  York,  bv  false  invoices  and  undervaluations,and 
other  devices  of  foreign  importers,  which,  as  an  act  of  duty  and  of  patriot- 
ism, he  felt  bound  to  detect  and  suppress.  He  anticipated  the  most  splendid 
results  from  his  labors  and  investigations  in  this  respect ;  and  with  such  spec- 
ulations he  amused  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  until  he  accomplished 
his  real  design  of  annihilating  the  commerce  of  the  country,  at  least  in  one 
important  branch  of  it,  and  of  filling  the  measure  of  his  own  avarice  from 
the  spoils.  Such  is  a  brief  history  of  the  events  and  transactions  at  the 
New  York  custom-house,  while  Mr.  Hoyt  had  the  control  and  superin- 
tendence of  the  public  revenue  received  at  that  port.  It  constitutes  an 
exception  to  the  actings  and  doings  of  any  previous  collector,  and  may 
furnish  a  salutary  admonition  to  the  Government  to  guard  against  the  re- 
currence of  events  so  injurious  to  the  national  character,  and  so  disastrous 
to  its  prosperity. 

It  now  becomes  necessary  to  speak  of  the  defalcations  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  and 
-of  the  purposes  to  which  he  applied  the  public  money  received  at  the  cus- 
tom-house at  New  York,  from  time  to  time,  during  his  continuance  in  office. 
It  is  difficult,  if  not  impracticable,  from  the  manner  in  which  the  collector's 
accounts  were  kept  at  the  custom-house,  to  ascertain  the  exact  amount  of 
money  received  or  disbursed  by  the  order  of  Mr.  Hoyt.  Both  the  auditor 
and  cashier,  as  well  as  all  other  officers  of  the  customs,  were  subject  to  the 
uncontrolled  will  of  the  collector.  He  might  direct  the  auditor  to  pass  ac- 
counts for  disbursements,  or  pretended  disbursements,  and  he  dare  not  re- 
fuse to  obey  such  instructions.    On  the  other  hand,  he  might  order  the  re- 


120 


Rep.  No.  669. 


jection  of  any  claim  on  the  custom-house,  or  any  department  thereof,  with- 
out regard  to  the  opinion  of  the  auditor  or  the  justice  of  the  case,  and  his 
dictum  became  at  once  the  rule  of  action  for  that  officer.  The  cashier  was 
placed  under  like  surveillance;  and, having  the  command  of  these  two  offi- 
cers, entries  on  the  cash  book  or  in  the  auditor's  office  might  be  made  or 
omitted,  as  the  collector  should  think  fit  to  direct.  The  naval  officer  con- 
stituted no  check  on  the  collector  in  this  respect,  because  he  relied  on  the 
entries  in  the  cash  book  for  his  own  government  in  reporting  to  the  Treas- 
ury Department  the  amount  of  money  received  at  the  custom-house  in  each 
,  quarter.  These  unlimited  powers,  claimed  and  exercised  by  the  collector, 
Tendered  him  wholly  irresponsible  to  the  Treasury  Department  in  his 
money  transactions,  except  so  far  as  he  might  incur  responsibility  by  his 
own  admissions  and  reports  to  the  Department.  His  accounts  in  the  sev- 
eral deposite  banks  were  kept  in  his  own  name,  as  an  individual  depositor,, 
and  not  as  collector  of  the  port,  by  which  means  all  his  bank  transactions 
were  excluded  from  the  examination  of  the  commissioners,  the  bank  offi- 
cers having  required  the  written  consent  of  Mr.  Hoyt  to  the  exhibition  of 
his  accounts,  before  they  could,  according  to  the  rules  of  the  bank,  allow 
them  to  be  examined  by  any  one,  other  than  himself  or  his  agent,  law- 
fully constituted  for  the  purpose. 

Under  these  circumstances,  it  was  in  the  power  of  the  collector  to  check 
on  these  deposite  banks,  for  any  amount  of  the  public  money,  for  any  pur- 
pose, either  for  his  own  private  use,  or  as  a  loan  to  others,  or  in  payment 
of  demands  against  the  Government,  without  rendering  himself  liable  to  de-# 
tection  in  any  case,  because,  the  accounts  being  in  his  own  name,  and  the 
checks  drawn  by  him  as  an  individual,  and  not  as  collector,  it  became  im- 
possible to  discriminate  between  money  drawn  for  the  use  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  that  drawn  for  his  own  use,  or  for  any  other  purpose.  This  sys- 
tem of  keeping  the  accounts  with  these  banks  was  approved  by  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  thereby  covering  the  receipts  and  disbursements  of 
Mr.  Hoyt  under  the  veil  of  impenetrable  secrecy,  which  cannot  be  removed, 
even  by  the  Government,  until  it  shall  be  the  good  will  and  pleasure  of  the- 
collector  to  grant  his  permission.  How,  then,  can  the  indebtedness  of  Mr. 
Hoyt  to  the  Government  be  demonstrated  by  proof,  or  a  fraudulent  appli- 
cation of  the  public  money  be  detected,  if  he  should  desire  to  conceal  it  ?  It 
is  evident  that  his  own  account  of  his  official  transactions,  so  far  as  the  pub- 
lic money  is  concerned,  must  be,  to  a  very  great  extent,  the  only  evidence 
to  which  the  Government  can  resort,  in  any  attempt  to  estimate  the  amount 
of  his  defalcations,  or  the  uses  to  which  the  public  money  may  have  been ' 
applied. 

For  the  purpose  of  obtaining  access  to  the  bank  accounts  of  Mr.  Hoyt 
at  the  Bank  of  the  State  of  New  York,  where  the  principal  part  of  his  de- 
posites  were  made,  in  the  only  practicable  mode,  the  commissioners  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  him,  bearing  date  July  21,  1841,  asking  his  written  per- 
mission, addressed  to  the  officers  of  the  bank,  for  such  access  and  examin  - 
ation. To  this  letter  Mr.  Hoyt  replied  on  the  23d  July,  1841,  refusing  to- 
grant  the  desired  permission.  He  required  of  the  commissioners,  as  a  con- 
dition precedent  to  the  disclosure  of  his  bank  accounts,  that  all  his  official 
acts  should  be  approved,  except  as  to  the  particular  matter  referred  to  in 
their  letter ;  and  that  he  should  be  permitted  to  summon  before  them  the 
witnesses  who  had  been  previously  examined  touching  his  conduct  as  col- 
lector, to  cross-examine  them,  and  produce  rebutting  testimony,  if  he  should 


Rep.  No.  669.  121 

consider  the  same  necessary.  These  conditions  were  rejected  by  the  com- 
missioners, for  reasons  which  will  be  found  in  their  letter  to  Mr.  Hoyt, 
bearing  date  July  26,  1841.  This  correspondence  was  extended  still  fur- 
ther, and  embraced  other  subjects,  all  of  which  has  been  reported  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The  result  was,  that  Mr.  Hoyt  refused  either 
to  open  his  bank  account,  or  to  appear  as  a  witness  and  testify  in  his  own 
behalf,  although  the  extraordinary  privilege  was  offered  him,  to  examine 
all  the  evidence  taken  by  the  commissioners,  and  introduce  explanatory  or 
rebutting  testimony,  if  in  his  power  to  do  so.  The  uses  to  which  the  public 
money  was  applied  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  other  than  the  payment  of  demands- 
against  the  Government  or  the  drafts  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  has 
been,  in  part,  traced  to  speculations  in  stocks,  and  advances  to  the  North 
American  Trust  and  Banking  Company,  by  the  examination  of  brokers  and 
some  of  the  officers  of  that  banking  institution. 

It  appears  by  the  testimony  of  John  J.  Barr,  a  broker  in  Wall  street,, 
that  he  had  been  largely  engaged  in  the  purchase  and  sale  of  stocks  for  ac- 
count of  Mr.  Hoyt ;  that  the  description  of  stocks  which  Mr.  Hoyt  dealt 
in,  through  him,  were:  "New  York,  Boston,  and  Providence  Railroad,. 
Delaware  and  Hudson  Canal  Company,  New  York  and  Harlem  Railroad,. 
New  York  and  Paterson  Railroad  ;  and  there  may  have  been  other  kinds 
which  I  cannot  remember.  I  am  unable  to  state  from  recollection  the 
amount  of  stocks  bought  and  sold  by  Mr.  Hoyt's  order.  He  frequently 
gave  me  orders  to  buy  and  again  to  sell  stocks,  varying  in  amount  from 
five  to  ten  thousand  dollars  at  a  time.  I  do  not  remember  any  order  for 
more  than  ten  thousand  dollars  at  a  time."  These  stocks  were  purchased 
by  the  broker,  in  his  own  name,  who  took  certificates  of  the  stock  so  pur- 
chased, and  made  on  the  back  a  blank  power  of  attorney,  signed  and  prop- 
erly authenticated,  which  he  delivered  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  who  thereupon  paid- 
the  money  to  the  broker,  sometimes  in  bank  notes  and  sometimes  in  a 
check  on  one  of  the  city  banks.  In  some  instances,  Mr.  Barr  states,  he 
delivered  to  Mr.  Hoyt  certificates  of  stock  at  the  custom-house,  and  receiv- 
ed payment  of  him  at  that  place.  The  total  amount  of  stocks  bought  and 
sold  by  the  witness,  on  account  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  he  states,  as  near  as  he  is  able' 
to  ascertain,  was  about  eighty  or  ninety  thousand  dollars.  The  witness 
further  states,  that  it  was  the  general  opinion  at  the  board  of  brokers,  that 
Mr.  Hoyt  was  greatly  embarrassed  in  consequence  of  his  stock  operations, 
and  that  many  brokers  havings  demands  against  him  had  compromised 
with  him  on  that  account.  The  witness  is  of  the  opinion  that  these  em- 
barrassments were  occasioned  by  stock  operations  before  Mr.  Hoyt  became 
collector.  From  these  facts  and  circumstances  it  may  be  fairly  inferred 
that  the  stock  operations  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  after  he  became  collector,  were  car- 
ried on  through  selected  brokers,  with  money  drawn  from  the  receipts  at 
the  custom-house  in  New  York. 

John  Warren,  another  broker  in  Wall  street,  testifies  that  he  bought  and 
sold  stocks  for  account  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  while  he  was  collector  of  the  port  of 
New  York.  These  purchases  and  sales  varied  from  five  to  ten  thousand 
dollars  at  a  time.  The  certificates  of  stock  so  purchased  were  taken  in  the 
name  of  the  witness,  and  transferred  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  or  sent  to  him  with  a 
power  of  attorney  for  its  transfer  attached.  The  witness  states  that  the 
stock  purchased  by  him  for  Mr.  Hoyt  was  usually  sent  to  him  at  the  cus- 
tom-house, and,  from  thence  he  received  payment  in  a  check  or  bank 
notes — most  generally  in  bank  notes.    The  witness  further  states  that  Mr. 


122 


Eep.  No.  669. 


Hoyt  was  in  embarrassed  circumstances  at  the  time  of  his  appointment; 
that  these  embarrassments  grew  out  of  his  stock  operations  prior  to  his 
appointment,  and  not  in  those  which  occurred  afterwards. 

William  G.  Bucknor,  a  Wall  street  broker,  testifies  that  he  was  employed 
by  Mr.  Hoyt  to  purchase  stock  on  his  account  prior  to  his  appointment  to 
the  office  of  collector,  and  that  he  was  largely  engaged  about  that  time  in 
stock  operations.  He  further  states  that,  at  the  time  of  the  appointment  of 
Mr.  Hoyt,  it  was  generally  understood  that  he  was  largely  indebted,  and  I 
that  his  indebtedness  was  the  result  of  his  previous  stock  transactions;  that 
he  was  informed  by  one  of  the  partners  of  a  house  to  which  Mr.  Hoyt 
was  largely  indebted  on  account  of  stock  operations,  that  he  had  compro- 
mised with  them  by  the  payment  of  a  part  of  the  amount  due,  after  he 
was  appointed  collector,  but  does  not  know  from  what  source  he  derived 
the  means  of  making  such  payment. 

Thaddeus  Phelps  also  testifies  to  the  embarrassments  in  the  pecuniary 
affairs  of  Mr.  Hoyt  at  the  time  of  his  appoitment  to  office ;  which  indebt- 
edness, Mr.  Hoyt  informed  the  witness,  he  had  adjusted  by  compromise, 
and  that  he  was  entirely  free  from  all  commitments  ;  and,  further,  that  he  i 
had  paid  large  sums  on  account  of  his  old  indebtedness. 

Thomas  D.  Carpenter,  of  the  house  of  Carpenter  &.  Costar,  states  that 
Mr.  Hoyt  was  largely  indebted  to  that  house,  and  that  they  compromised 
with  him  by  taking  a  part  of  the  sum  due  ;  and  that  this  indebtedness  grew  ; 
out  of  stock  operations,  in  which  the  firm  of  which  he  was  one  acted  as 
his  agents ;  and,  further,  that,  at  the  time  Mr.  Hoyt  was  appointed  col- 
lector,  he  did  not  consider  him  a  man  of  pecuniary  responsibility. 

Other  brokers  were  examined  on  the  subject  of  the  pecuniary  condition 
of  Mr.  Hoyt  at  the  time  of  his  appintment  to  the  office  of  collector,  and  of 
his  subsequent  transactions  in  stocks,  but  their  testimony  need  not  be  par- 
ticularly recited,  as  it  corresponds  generally  with  the  statements  of  the  wit-  i 
nesses  above  mentioned.  The  material  facts  on  which  a  judgment  must  be 
formed — whether  the  money  paid  out  by  Mr.  Hoyt  for  stocks,  after  he  be- 
came collector,  was  drawn  from  the  receipts  at  the  custom-house  or  from 
his  own  resources — may  be  comprised  in  the  following  summary: 

1st.  He  was  largely  indebted  on  stock  operations  before  his  appoint- 
ment. 

2d.  That  he  compromised  these  debts,  or  some  of  them,  by  the  payment 
of  a  less  sum  than  was  due  from  him. 

3d.  That  he  was  not  considered  at  that  time  a  man  of  pecuniary  respon- 
sibility. 

4th.  That  he  employed  several  brokers  to  purchase  stocks  for  him  after 
he  became  collector;  that  the  stocks  so  purchased  were  transferred  to  him; 
and  that  all  the  payments  for  these  stocks  were  promptly  made  by  him,  at 
the  custom-house,  in  bank  notes  or  checks,  but  generally  in  bank  notes. 

There  can  be  but  little  difficulty,  from  this  evidence,  in  arriving  at  the 
conclusion  that  the  public  money  in  the  custody  of  the  collector  of  the 
customs  in  New  York  was,  from  time  to  time,  appropriated  to  his  own  use 
in  stock  speculations.  And,  by  reference  to  the  testimony  of  John  J.  Barr, 
it  appears  that  most  of  the  institutions  the  stock  of  which  he  purchased  for 
Mr.  Hoyt  have  entirely  failed,  and  their  stock  become  worthless.  The  trans- 
actions of  Mr.  Hoyt  with  the  North  American  Trust  and  Banking  Com- 
pany call  for  particular  notice. 

It  appears,  by  a  statement  taken  from  the  books  of  this  institution,  and 


Eep.  No.  669.  123 

appended  to  the  deposition  of  Joseph  D.  Beers,  president  thereof,  that  the 
hank  stood  indebted  to  the  collector,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Mr. 
Beers,  in  the  sum  of  $100,000,  at  the  date  of  the  second  suspension  of  the 
.banks  of  Philadelphia,  which  the  witness  testifies  took  place  in  the  fall  of 
1839.  That  on  the  1 1th  day  of  October,  of  the  same  year,  Mr.  Hoyt  com- 
menced making  large  deposites  of  the  money  received  at  the  custom-house 
in  that  bank,  and  continued  to  do  so  until  the  15th  of  October,  1840, 
amounting,  in  the  whole,  to  the  sum  of  $695,680.  Mr.  Beers  states  that, 
at  the  time  these  large  deposites  commenced,  the  institution  was  in  want  of 
money  to  meet  its  engagements,  which  it  was  unable  to  raise  from  any 
other  source  than  the  custom-house  without  a  sacrifice,  but  he  believes  the 
money  could  have  been  raised  from  other  sources  by  making  such  sacrifice; 
that,  under  these  circumstances,  application  was  made  to  the  collector  to 
increase  his  deposites,  which  was  accordingly  done,  with  the  intention  of 
aiding  the  bank  in  meeting  its  engagements.  He  further  states,  that  the 
security  given  to  the  collector  for  these  deposites  was  the  bond  of  the  di- 
rectors, which  was  delivered  to  him  in  October,  1839  ;  and  at  the  same 
time  a  quantity  of  Indiana  State  bonds,  the  amount  not  particularly  ascer- 
tained, was  handed  over  to  the  collector  as  collateral  security. 

Mr.  Warren  states  that,  during  the  above-mentioned  period,  the  general 
reputation  of  the  North  American  Trust  and  Banking  Company  was  not 
such  that  business  men  considered  it  a  safe  depository  for  large  sums  of 
money ;  and  that  extensive  operations  in  the  stock  of  this  bank  were 
made  during  the  same  time,  with  great  fluctuations  in  the  prices  at  which, 
-it  was  sold.  The  witness  further  states,  that  "  the  deposites  made  by  Mr. 
Hoyt  undoubtedly  affected  the  price,  causing  it  to  advance  ;  and,  after 
(the  effect  of  the  deposites  ceased,  the  stock  again  receded. " 

William  G.  Bucknor  states  that  "  the  condition  and  general  character  of 
that  institution  was  not  such  that  I  should  have  considered  it  safe  to  make 
large  deposites  of  money  in  it ;  and  such,  1  believe,  was  the  general  opin- 
ion of  business  men  in  this  city."  And  on  being  interrogated  whether  it 
was  believed,  at  the  brokers'  board,  that  Mr.  Hoyt  was  largely  interested 
in  purchasing  the  stock  of  the  North  American  Trust  and  Banking  Com- 
pany, he  answers:  "  It  was  the  general  impression  among  the  brokers  that 
Mr.  Hoyt  was  largely  interested  in  operating  in  the  stock  of  that  institution. 
This  impression  probably  arose  from  the  knowledge  that  he  was  strongly 
addicted  to  stock  speculations,  and  from  the  fact  that  certain  persons  dealt 
largely  in  that  stock,  who,  from  the  connexion  and  the  confidence  and  inti- 
macy subsisting  between  them  and  Mr.  Hoyt,  were  supposed  to  be  operat- 
ing for  him,  or  that  he  was  interested  in  their  operations."  And,  further, 
that  he  believes  these  operations  were  extremely  unprofitable. 

Mr.  Barr,  on  being  interrogated  as  to  the  credit  of  the  North  American 
Trust  and  Banking  Company  during  the  time  Mr.  Hoyt  was  making  large 
deposites  therein,  answers :  "  I  think  the  credit  of  that  institution  during 
the  period  referred  to  in  the  interrogatory  was  not  good.  I  sometimes  had 
checks  on  that  bank,  and  was  compelled  to  wait  until  money  or  checks 
came  in  before  I  could  obtain  payment.  Certificates  of  deposites  in  that 
bank  were  commonly  sold  in  Wall  street  at  a  discount,  which  commenced 
at  3  to  5  per  cent.,  and  went  on  increasing  until  certificates  on  time  were 
sold  in  some  instances  at  the  rate  of  5  per  cent,  per  month  discount.  I 
should  not  have  considered  it  a  safe  institution  in  which  to  make  deposites 


124 


Rep.  No.  669. 


of  public  money,  and  was  surprised  when  I  heard  that  Mr.  Hoythad  made 

his  deposites  therein." 

Mr.  McJimsey,  a  brother-in-law  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  a  broker  in  Wal 
street,  was  a  large  operator  in  the  stock  of  the  North  American  Trust  and 
Banking  Company.  In  reply  to  a  question  put  to  Mr.  Barr  on  this  subject,  | 
whether  Mr.  Hoyt  was  generally  understood  to  be  interested  in  these  op< 
erations,  the  witness  answered:  "Mr.  McJimsey  was  during  that  period 
the  largest  operator  in  the  stocks  of  that  institution.    I  frequently  bought 
and  sold  that  stock  on  his  account  ;  in  one  instance,  I  bought  stock  of  that 
institution  for  him,  and  on  the  same  day  sold  it  on  his  account  at  a  loss  oi 
from  two  to  three  per  cent.    It  was  reported,  and  generally  believed,  at  the 
brokers'  board,  that  Mr.  Hoyt  was  interested  with  McJimsey  in  his  opera- 
tions in  North  American  Trust  and  Banking  Company  stock,  but  the 
matter  was  so  managed  as  to  prevent  my  having  any  positive  knowledge 
that  such  was  the  fact."    James  J.  King,  a  witness  sworn  and  examined 
before  the  commissioners,  testified  that  "  Jesse  Hoyt,  late  collector  of  this 
port,  in  the  fall  of  1839,  did  loan  or  deposite  with  the  North  American 
Trust  and  Banking  Company  large  sums  of  money,  amounting  to  one  hun- 
dred and  seventy  thousand  dollars  and  over;  which  money  he  had  received 
as  collector  of  the  port.    This  was  publicly  spoken  of  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  was 
stated  by  him  to  me ;  and  his  object  was  declared  to  be  to  sustain  that  in- 
stitution in  its  efforts  to  continue  payments  in  specie.    The  terms  of  the 
deposite  were  not  disclosed  to  me."    He  further  states  that,  at  the  time  of 
the  deposite,  the  credit  of  that  institution  was  not  supposed  to  be  good,  and 
that,  at  the  time  the  loan  or  deposite  was  made,  the  Government  was  is-; 
suing  Treasury  notes  bearing  interest. 

David  Clarkson  was  asked,  whether  extensive  speculations  in  the  stock 
of  the  North  American  Trust  and  Banking  Company  were  not  made  while 
Mr.  Hoyt  was  making  deposites  therein  ?  To  which  he  answered  :  "  I  can 
only  state,  in  answer  to  this  question,  that,  during  part  of  the  time  Mr.  Hoyt 1 
was  collector  of  this  port,  the  transactions  in  North  American  Trust 
and  Banking  Company  stock  were  very  large,  and  the  changes  in  the  price 
great;  and  that  this  state  of  things  was  attributed  to  Mr.  Hoyt."  And  the 
witness  further  states,  that  the  institution  at  that  time  was  of  very  doubtful 
credit. 

The  books  of  correspondence  between  Mr.  Hoyt  and  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  do  not,  so  far  as  they  have  been  examined,  appear  to  contain 
any  thing  in  relation  to  these  deposites,  but  it  was  generally  understood,  in 
New  York,  that  they  were  made  under  the  sanction  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury. 

It  appears  by  the  statement  of  Bernard  Hart,  secretary  of  the  New  York 
Stock  and  Exchange  Board,  that  the  stock  of  the  North  American  Trust 
and  Banking  Company  fluctuated,  in  the  ratio  of  the  deposites  made  from 
time  to  time  therein  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  until  in  the  month  of  September,  1840, 
it  declined  to  25h  to  26i  per  cent. ;  after  which,  no  deposites,  except  a  very 
small  sum  on  the  7th  of  October,  were  made  in  this  bank.  It  is  evident, 
that  as  the  price  of  this  stock  depended  on  deposites  of  the  public  money 
made  from  time  to  time  by  the  collector,  and  declined  when  these  depos- 
ites were  withheld,  that  it  was  in  his  power,  or  that  of  any  other  person  in 
the  secret,  who  might  be  employed  by  him  to  anticipate  a  rise  in  the  stock, 
by  a  knowledge  of  the  day  on  which  the  bank  would  receive  assistance 
from  the  custom-house,  and  thus  purchase  while  the  bank  was  in  want  of 


Eep.  No.  669. 


125 


funds  to  meet  its  engagements,  and  the  stock  was  in  a  state  of  depression ; 
and  immediately  after  relief  was  afforded,  by  advances  of  specie  from  the 
custom-house,  sell  otf  the  same  stock  at  much  higher  rates  than  that  at 
which  it  was  purchased.  In  some  instances  the  advance  in  price  in  the 
stock  market  exceeded  20  per  cent.  This  profit  accrued  exclusively  to  the 
collector  and  his  friends,  who  were  advised  of  the  intended  deposite  before 
it  was  made. 

What  could  justify  or  palliate  the  appropriation  of  the  public  money 
by  Mr.  Hoyt  to  stock  speculations,  for  his  own  account  and  benefit  ?  Cer- 
tainly nothing  short  of  permission,  express  or  implied,  to  do  so,  from  the 
.Executive  Government  at  Washington.    But  more  especially  may  it  be 
asked,  under  whose  sanction  the  collector  deposited  in  specie  nearly  one 
million  of  dollars,  within  a  very  short  period,  in  the  vaults  of  a  failing 
bank,  the  stock  of  which  was  animated  or  depressed  according  to  the 
amount  and  frequency  of  these  deposites  ?    Mr.  Hoyt  himself,  being  a 
! large  speculator  in  this  stock,  through  the  agency  of  certain  brokers  in 
Wall  street,  held  the  destinies  of  the  bank  in  his  own  hands,  could  pur- 
chase stock  at  depression,  and  sell  out,  at  the  moment  of  making  his 
own  deposites,  at  a  large  advance,  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  promote  his 
own  interest,  at  a  time  when  this  institution  was  in  a  bad  credit,  and  its 
certificates  of  deposites  on  time  selling  in  the  market  at  5  per  cent,  per 
month,  and  in  which  no  prudent  merchant  would  deposite  a  dollar,  actually 
loaned  to  it  nearly  one  million  of  dollars,  |in  gold  and  silver,  or  their 
equivalent,  while  the  Treasury  was  empty,  and  the  Government  compelled 
to  issue  its  own  notes  to  meet  the  current  demands  on  the  Treasury. 
That  these  acts  were  perpetrated  by  the  late  collector,  Hoyt,  is  undeniable  ; 
that  they  were  known  to  and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
is  understood  and  believed  where  the  transactions  took  place  ;  but  it  is  a 
remarkable  fact,  heretofore  noticed,  that  not  one  word  can  be  found  in  re- 
lation to  these  speculations  and  deposites  in  the  official  correspondence  of 
{he  collector  with  the  Treasury  Department.    It  appears  that  Mr.  Hoyt 
made  a  sweeping  business  of  the  public  money  at  the  custom-house  in 
New  York.  He  paid  old  debts,  dealt  largely  in  the  stock,  loaned  money  to 
sustain  a  sinking  bank,  to  say  nothing  of  elections,  and  rewards  to  favor- 
ites and  partisans  ;  and  all  these  high-handed  interpolations  on  the  Consti- 
tution and  laws,  and  the  practice  of  the  Government  as  it  existed  in  its 
primitive  purity,  were  done  and  committed  in  the  face  of  the  American 
people,  and,  if  not  fully  approved  by  the  Executive,  passed  without  rebuke, 
until  they  resulted,  as  might  have  been  expected,  in  the  defalcation  of  Mr. 
Hoyt  to  a. very  large  amount,  a  knowledge  of  which,  by  Congress,  arrest- 
ed his  career  and  drove  him  from  office. 

At  the  time  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  appointment  to  office,  he  was  irresponsible  in 
his  pecuniary  condition,  being  largely  involved  in  debt.  He  not  only 
compromised,  and  thereby  discharged  his  antecedent  indebtedness,  by  the 
use  of  the  public  money  which  came  into  his  hands  as  collector,  but  he 
drew  from  the  same  source  large  amounts,  from  time  to  time,  to  be  invest- 
ed in  stock  speculations.  Besides  this  unwarrantable  application  of  the 
money  of  the  Government  to  his  own  private  use  and  benefit,  his  attempt 
to  sustain  the  North  American  Trust  and  Banking  Company,  by  loans  of 
gold  and  silver  to  that  institution,  at  a  time,  when  its  credit  was  known  to 
be  decidedly  bad,  and  at  a  time  also,  when  the  Government  was  driven  to 
the  necessity  of  resorting  to  Treasury  notes  to  discharge  its  liabilities,  de- 


126 


Rep.  No.  669. 


served  to  be  condemned  and  punished  in  the  most  exemplary  manner,, 
and  might  have  been  arrested  with  proper  vigilance  at  the  Treasury  De- 
partment, before  it  reached  the  enormous  sum  which  Mr.  Hoyt  took  with 
him,  on  his  removal  from  the  office  of  collector.  But  he  found  no  diffi- 
culty in  obtaining  the  sanction  of  the  Treasury  Department  to  all  his  acts,, 
over  which  it  would  seem,  from  his  correspondence,  he  assumed  dictato- 
rial power,  rather  than  the  attitude  of  an  obedient  subordinate  to  the  or- 
ders of  his  superiors.  In  addition  to  the  encroachments  made  direct- 
ly by  Mr.  Hoyt  on  the  money  received  for  imposts  at  the  custom  houser 
for  which  there  could  be  no  moral  or  legal  justification,  he  derived  an  im- 
mense revenue  on  his  own  private  account  from  the  following  sources : 
1st.  His  salary  as  collector    -  -  -  -       -      $4,400  00 

2d.  Duties  paid  under  protest,  amounting  at  one  time  to  -  150,000  0O 
3d.  Compromises  with  foreign  importers,  on  suits  and  prose- 
cutions instituted  or  threatened,  not  for  duties  or  penalties 
ascertained  by  the  judgment  of  the  district  court,  one-half 
being  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  Government,  leaving  in 
the  hands  of  the  collector,  for  distribution  according  to  law  89,343  95* 
4th.  Storage  at  the  public  stores  on  general  order,  retained 

without  the  authority  of  law  ....  30,000*  00 
5th.  Fees  and  emoluments  retained  -  36,000  00 

6th.  Sale  of  burnt  goods  in  Front  street       -  -        -      20,000  00 

7th.  Duties  retained  from  1838  to  1841        -  -        -        4,853  5& 

8th.  Duties  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  for  goods  under  sei- 
zures the  cases  being  not  yet  tried         -  -  4,426  03 
9th.  Duties  retained  in  a  case  pending  in  the  circuit  court,        2,984  39' 
10th.  Duties  paid,  on  which  the  auditor  says  he  can  give  no 

information  -  3,533  79* 

11th.  Duties  paid  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  credited  to  the  Govern- 
ment in  the  cash  book,  returned  as  cash  duties  in  his 
weekly  return  to  the  Treasury  Department,  and  subse- 
quently withdrawn,  without  being  credited  in  the  quarter- 
ly return  -  -  -  -  ...  8,250  02: 
12th.  Duties  received  in  1839,  and  passed  to  the  credit  of 

the  Government  in  1841     -  -  ...        3,890  39 

13th.  Duties  not  credited  to  the  Government  in  the  quar- 
terly return  rendered  to  the  Treasury  Department        -      38,755  95 
14th.  Amount  of  entries  on  which  the  duties  had  been  re- 
ceived, abstracted  from  the  office  of  the  cashier  during  the 
month  of  January,  1841,  not  debited  to  the  collector      -      63,039  62 
15th.  Excesses  of  cash  balances  received  at  the  custom- 
house and  paid  to  the  collector,  of  which  no  entry  was 
made  on  the  cash  book    -----        2,824  91 
Making  the  aggregate  sum  of    -  -  -  459,477  6fr 

These  sums  were  retained  by  Mr.  Hoyt  and  not  entered  on  his  quarter- 
ly returns  to  the  Treasury  Department.  The  sums  received  by  him  for 
duties  under  protest,  and  for  duties  retained  after  the  seizure  of  goods, 
varied  in  amount  during  each  quarter,  but  the  general  average  was  about 
the  same  sum.  On  all  money  so  held  by  the  collector,  he  paid  no  in- 
terest to  the  Government,  while  money  in  the  New  York  market  was 
commanding  a  very  heavy  rate  of  interest,  extending  in  some  instances  to 


Rep.  No.  669.  12T 

5  per  cent,  per  month.  In  all  controversies  arising  out  of  the  seizure  of 
goods,  it  became  the  interest  of  the  collector  to  procrastinate  the  decision 
as  long  as  possible,  because  in  the  mean  time  he  held  the  duties,  under 
pretence  that  they  were  a  part  of  the  forfeiture,  in  case  the  goods  were 
convicted,  and  the  accruing  interest  enured  to  his  benefit  so  long  as  the 
goods  remained  under  seizin  e.  The  same  benefit  resulted  to  the  collect- 
or on  duties  received  under  protest,  of  which  he  had  the  entire  use  and 
control,  until  the  duties  were  directed  to  be  returned,  by  order  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  All  these  advantages  Mr.  Hoyt  enjoyed,  be- 
sides the  immense  sums  which  he  claimed  as  his  exclusive  right,  and  his 
unqualified  appropriation  of  the  money  received  at  the  custom-house 
to  purposes  of  his  own,  in  violation  of  law  and  of  official  duty  and 
integrity.  Of  the  money  collected  by  Mr.  Hoyt  on  foreign  commerce 
entered  at  the  port  of  New  York,  and  reported  in  his  quarterly  accounts 
as  being  credited  to  the  Government,  he  states  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  in  his  letter  (see  Appendix  N)  of  the  29th  day  of  August,  1840,, 
that,  "during  his  continuance  in  office,  he  had  retained  in  his  hands  an 
average  sum  of  $350,000  to  meet  contingencies."  This  sum,  also,  was 
held  without  the  payment  of  interest  to  the  Government,  while  he  doubt- 
less turned  it  to  good  account  in  the  shape  of  loans,  at  short  credits,  to  indi- 
viduals. 

The  passage  of  the  act  commonly  called  the  Sub-Treasury  act,  on  the 
4th  day  of  July,  1S40,  created  new  relations  between  the  collector  and 
the  Treasury  Department,  and  required  of  him  new  duties  to  be  perform- 
ed in  reference  to  the  safe  keeping  and  disbursement  of  the  public  money 
received  at  the  custom-house.  By  the  8th  section  of  the  above-mention- 
ed act,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  is  required,  "  at  as  early  a  day  as 
possible  after  the  passage  of  this  act,  to  require  from  the  several  deposi- 
tories hereby  constituted,  and  whose  official  bonds  are  not  hereinbefore- 
provided  for,  to  execute  bonds,  new  and  suitable  in  their  terms,  to  meet 
the  new  and  increased  duties  imposed  upon  them,  respectively,  by  this  act^ 
and  with  sureties  and  in  sums  such  as  shall  seem  reasonable  and  safe  to- 
the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  and  from  time  to  time  to  require  such  bonds 
to  be  renewed  and  increased  in  amount,  and  strengthened  by  new  sure- 
ties, to  meet  any  increasing  responsibility  which  may  grow  out  of  accu- 
mulations of  money  in  the  hands  of  the  depository,  or  out  of  any  other  duty  or 
responsibility  arising  under  this  or  any  other  law  of  Congress."  In  the 
execution  of  these  provisions  of  the  act,  Mr.  Hoyt  was  called  on  by  the 
Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  to  give  a  new  bond,  with  new  security,  for 
the  performance  of  the  additional  duties  created  by  the  Sub-Treasury  act, 
and  at  the  same  time  enclosed  to  him  the  form  of  the  bond  required  to 
be  given.  A  correspondence  arose  on  this  subject,  between  the  collector^ 
the  Comptroller,  the  Attorney  General,  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,, 
commencing  on  the  10th  of  July  and  ending  on  the  29th  of  August,  1840. 
(  See  Appendix  O. )  Of  the  nature  and  character  of  this  correspondence  it  is 
unnecessary  to  speak  in  detail,  as  copies  of  the  material  parts  of  it  are  append- 
ed to  this  report.  The  bond,  it  appears,  was  demanded  by  the  Comptroller 
under  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General,  which  drew  from  Mr.  Hoyt  an 
elaborate  argument  to  prove  that  he  was  not  bound  to  give  the  bond  which 
had  been  required  of  him;  which  argument  he  desired  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  to  submit  to  the  consideration  of  the  Attorney  General,  deeming 
it  sufficient  to  induce  that  high  officer  of  the  Government  to  reverse  the. 


128 


Bep.  No.  669. 


opinion  previously  given  to  the  Comptroller  on  the  subject  of  the  new 
bond.  His  request  was  complied  with,  and  resulted  in  a  renewed  expres- 
sion of  the  opinion  originally  given  to  the  Comptroller,  and  a  new  call  on 
the  collector  to  execute  the  bond,  with  security,  as  he  had  been  required 
to  do  in  the  letter  of  the  Comptroller  of  the  10th  July.  On  the  29th  of 
August,  Mr.  Hoyt  closed  this  correspondence  in  a  letter  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  reviewing  all  that  had  been  previously  written  on  this 
subject.  This  letter  is  excursive  and  argumentative  ;  but  it  will  be  suffi- 
cient to  give  a  few  extracts  from  it,  to  show  its  general  character  and  the 
eonclusion  at  which  the  collector  arrived,  not  to  comply  with  the  demand 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Mr.  Hoyt  says :  u  But  the  Attorney 
General  suggests  that  the  new  bond,  when  given,  need  not  exceed  the 
present  secuiity,  if  the  Department  should  deem  it  reasonable  and  safe. 
There  are  two  views  to  be  taken  of  this  question.  I  acted  as  collector 
and  sub-treasurer  for  over  two  years,  during  which  time  I  collected  and 
paid  over  and  disbursed  near  $20,000,000,  having  in  hand  an  average  sura 
of  about  8350,000,  and  the  official  bonds  were  of  $200,000.  Under  the  pie- 
sent  system,  I  pay  over  to  the  receiver  all  the  collections  twice  a  week,  who 
also  gives  bonds  for  the  like  sum  of  S200,000.  One  of  two  conclusions 
under  this  State  of  facts  is  inevitable  : 

u  1st.  That  the  Department  were  negligent  in  keeping  my  bonds  so 
small  when  I  acted  as  sub-treasurer ;  or, 

u2d.  That  it  is  now  greatly  oppressive  in  asking  for  new  bonds  under 
the  present  system,  as  if  new  bonds  are  insisted  upon,  that  the  amount 
should  be  as  large  as  they  were  before. 

"  The  receiver's  bonds  should  be  considered  as  removing,  to  some  ex- 
tent at  least,  the  burdens  formerly  thrown  upon  the  collector. 

"  If  the  circular  requirement  is  abandoned,  as  it  must  be  under  the  opin- 
ion of  the  Attorney  General,  1  have  not  a  word  to  say,  because  there  is 
power  in  the  Department  to  call  for  additional  sureties  at  all  times.  That 
call  has  been  made  upon  me  once,  and  it  was  complied  with,  and  would 
be  again  ;  but  I  will  not  submit  to  any  executive  outside  of  the  law,  when 
demanded  as  a  matter  of  right." 

The  letter  is  throughout  arrogant,  insolent,  and  dictatoral  to  the  head 
of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  concludes  with  a  positive  refusal  to  obey 
an  order  twice  repeated  from  that  Department.  In  ordinary  cases,  it 
would  seem  that,  to  preserve  proper  subordination  among  inferior  officers, 
the  language  used  by  the  collector  would  have  called  for  his  instant  re- 
moval from  office.  The  dignity  of  the  Government,  as  well  as  the  securi- 
ty of  the  public  money,  required  that  this  step  should  have  been  taken  in 
relation  to  Mr.  Hoyt.  But  the  collector  had  sufficient  experience  of  the 
effect  of  similar  language,  which  he  never  failed  to  employ  in  his  cor- 
respondence with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  all  occasions  of  a 
conflict  of  opinion  on  legal  points,  or  points  of  duty,  which  arose  between 
him  and  the  Department.  And  in  this  case  he  was  not  disappointed  in 
the  expectation  that  his  dictation,  conveyed  in  terms  of  reproach  and  cen- 
sure on  his  superiors,  would  be  permitted  t)  pass  without  rebuke,  and  re- 
ceive the  submissive  approbation  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The 
new  bond  was  not  given,  and  Mr.  Hoyt  remained  in  office,  as  he  desired 
to  do,  under  his  former  security. 

It  may  be  proper  to  furnish  another  extract  from  this  letter  of  Mr.  Hoyt, 
which  closed  the  correspondence  on  this  subject,  and  to  which  no  reply 
was  made  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  whom  it  was  addressed. 


Rep.  No.  6G9. 


129 


n  speaking  of  the  condition  of  his  former  bond,  as  collector,  he  adds: 
1  That  is  the  condition  of  my  present  bond,  and  i  defy  the  most  astute  to 
nd  a  word  in  the  act  of  4th  July  embracing  the  duties  of  the  office  of 
ollector,  which  renders  it  necessary  to  create  a  new  bond  ;  and  therefore 
feel  myself  justified,  under  the  present  views  of  the  case,  in  declining, 
voluntarily^  to  give  a  new  bond,  and  more  especially  such  a  bond  as  has 
•een  sent  to  me."  There  can  be  but  little  doubt  of  the  fact,  which  ought 
o  have  been  known  at  the  Treasury  Department,  that,  at  the  moment 
vhen  these  dicta  of  the  collector  were  unblushingly  thrown  at  the  head 
f  the  Treasury  Department,  in  defiance  of  his  power,  the  securities  to 
he  bonds  previously  given  by  the  collector  wTere  utterly  insolvent,  and 
hat  other  security  ought  to  have  been  demanded,  as  a  condition  on  which 
lis  continuance  in  office  should  depend.  No  such  precaution  was  taken  ; 
iut  Mr.  Hoyt  remained  in  office  on  his  own  terms,  without  regard  to  the 
afety  of  the  immense  amount  of  revenue  passing  through  his  hands.  At 
he  time  the  Sub-Treasury  went  into  operation,  a  large  balance  was  held 
•y  Mr.  Hoyt,  which  he  was  instructed  to  pay  over  to  Mr.  Allen,  the  re- 
eiver  general,  where  his  future  deposites  were  to  be  made,  according  to 
he  provision  of  that  act.  This  order,  also,  he  declined  to  comply  witb^ 
nd  a  copious  correspondence  grew  out  of  this  refusal,  between  himself 
nd  the  Treasury  Department.  The  purpose  of  the  collector  seems  to 
lave  been  to  make  himself  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  to  con- 
ider  all  sums  which  he  might  think  proper  to  pass  to  the  credit  of  the 
rreasurer  on  his  own  books,  as  being  ipso  facto  placed,  by  that  act  alone, 
n  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States.  No  deposite  in  bank,  or  payment 
>f  any  demand  against  the  Government,  on  the  draft  of  the  Treasurer,  was 
leemed  by  him  to  be  necessary  to  constitute  a  payment  to  the  Treasury  ; 
)ut  the  amount  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  was  regarded  as  a 
>ayment  into  the  Treasury,  subject  to  the  draft  of  the  Treasurer.  This 
mint  was  contested  in  the  correspondence  between  Mr.  Hoyt  and  the 
rreasurer,  which  was  finally  settled  in  favor  of  the  collector.  Under  this 
trrangement,  all  the  money  received  at  the  custom-house  was  placed  at 
he  entire  control  and  discretion  of  the  collector — he  paying  such  drafts  as 
night  be  made  on  him,  or  refusing  to  do  so,  at  pleasure;  and  on  all  pay- 
nents  so  made  he  claimed  the  right  to  exact  from  the  Government  a  com- 
nission  of  1  per  cent,  for  disbursing  the  revenue  which  came  into  his 
lands  as  collector.  To  continue  this  system  for  his  own  advantage,  he 
esorted  to  his  auditor  (Mr.  Fleming)  to  state  the  advantages  which  would 
-esult  from  it,  and  recommended  the  adoption  of  his  plan,  as  the  best  that 
:ould  be  devised,  for  accuracy,  in  the  settlement  of  the  old  balances  re- 
maining in  the  hands  of  the  collector,  and  to  make  deposites  with  the 
receiver  general  of  such  money  only  as  might  accrue  in  the  collection  of 
the  revenue  subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  Sub-Treasury  act.  He  ob- 
jected to  making  deposites  in  bank,  although  instructed  to  do  so,  and 
recommended  that  such  deposites  should  be  made  on  the  draft  of  the 
Treasurer,  in  favor  of  the  bank,  by  means  of  which  he  set  up  a  claim  to  a 
commission  of  1  per  cent,  on  the  amount  deposited,  although  it  was  his 
duty,  as  collector,  to  make  such  deposites,  in  conformity  with  instructions 
from  the  Treasury  Department.  The  duty  bonds,  also,  instead  of  being 
collected  at  the  bank,  as  the  practice  had  been,  were  lodged  with  the 
cashier  of  the  custom-house,  and,  when  paid,  the  amount  of  each  payment 
was  handed  over  to  the  collector,  and  held  by  him  until  drawn  for  by  the 
9 


130 


Eep  No.  669. 


Treasurer,  which,  according  to  his  definition  of  his  powers  and  duties, 
entitled  him  to  demand  a  commission,  as  above  stated,  for  disbursements. 
These  points  being  conceded  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  as  every  thing  else  was,  two- 
thirds  of  the  revenue  derived  from  imposts  at  the  port  of  New  York  was 
paid  out  under  drafts  from  the  Treasury  Department,  and  the  commis- 
sions debited  to  the  Government,  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  his  account  current, 
amounting  in  the  whole  to  $201,580.    The  correspondence  on  this  sub- 
ject will  be  found  in  the  Appendix  ;  and,  from  its  peculiar  character  for 
insolence,  on  the  part  of  the  collector,  and  submission  from  the  officers  of 
the  Treasury  Department,  is  commended  as  well  worthy  of  the  especial 
attention  of  the  Government.    To  the  large  sums  heretofore  enumerated, 
which  the  collector  appropriated  and  retained  to  his  own  use,  besides  the 
sum  of  $350,000,  which  he  admits  was  held  by  him  during  his  term  of 
office  to  meet  contingencies,  may  be  added  the  large  sum,  for  commis- 
sions, of    -  -  -  -  -  -  -  §201,580  00 

And  for  fees  and  emoluments  credited  to  the  Government 
in  the  first  instance,  and  then  debited  by  Mr.  Hoyt  in 
his  last  report  to  the  Treasury  Department        -  -      37,176  35 

Making  the  aggiegate  sum,  on  these  two  items,  of  -  -    238,756  35 

The  charge  for  commissions  is  clearly  inadmissible,  and  seems  to  have 
been  introduced  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  mingle  it  with  other  matters, 
so  as  to  produce  a  fictitious  settlement  of  his  account  at  the  Treasury, 
while  his  indebtedness  to  the  Government  was  in  a  regular  course  of  ju- 
dicial adjustment.  It  is  impossible  to  speak,  with  any  approach  to  cer- 
tainty, of  the  actual  defalcations  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  so  diversified  were  the 
sources  from  which  he  drew  money  to  his  own  use,  and  so  enveloped  in 
mystery  were  his  accounts  kept,  both  at  the  custom-house  and  at  the 
banks.  But,  if  his  own  representations  are  taken  alone,  independent  of 
the  fictitious  credits  which  he  claims,  his  indebtedness  cannot  fall  far  short 
of  $300,000.  Besides  this  large  sum,  it  appears  by  the  evidence  of  Mr. 
Fleming,  the  auditor,  that,  in  the  months  of  January  and  February,  1S41, 
entries  were  abstracted  from  the  custom-house,  by  some  means  unknown, 
to  the  amount  of  $63,000,  which  enured  to  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Hoyt.  This 
transaction  is  fully  explained  by  Mr.  Fleming,  in  his  answer  to  a  question 
put  to  him  by  the  commissioners  on  this  subject,    in  his  answer  he  says  : 

"  The  only  entries  that  I  have  any  knowledge  of  having  been  abstracted 
from  the  custom-house  were  a  number  that  were  supposed  to  have  been 
taken  from  the  cashier's  office  on  the  days  that  the  duties  were  paid,  and 
before  the  articles  reached  the  proper  files  of  the  collector's  office.  This 
was  in  the  month  of  January  and  February  last,  amounting  to  $63,039  72. 

These  were  ordinary  entries  for  merchandise  imported,  and  are  the 
only  papers,  of  any  description,  that  have  ever  been  taken  or  withdrawn 
from  the  custom-house,  of  which  I  have  any  knowledge.  By  whom  they 
were  taken,  or  for  what  purpose,  1  do  not  know;  all  the  information  that  I 
possess  on  this  subject  is,  that,  in  the  course  of  the  examination  and  com- 
pletion of  the  final  accounts  of  Mr,  Hoyt,  it  was  discovered  that  the  above 
entries  were  not  included  in  the  accounts  of  the  vessels  to  which  they 
properly  belonged,  and,  if  omitted  in  the  abstracts  for  the  Treasury,  the 
effect  would  be  to  deprive  the  United  States  of  the  credit  of  these  sums. 
u  The  mon^y  had  been  regularly  paid  at  the  cashier's  office,  and  en- 


Eep  No.  669.  131 

tered  in  his  book  of  cash  duties,  which,  in  the  examination  of  the  accounts, 
enabled  us  to  detect  the  loss  of  the  entries." 

He  further  says:  "Mr,  Hoyt's  account  would  have  been  benefited  by 
the  loss,  inasmuch  as  the  absence  of  credit  to  the  United  Slates  would 
have  been  a  gain  to  him,  individually,  of  the  entire  amount,  and  the  loss 
of  the  entries  could  only  have  effected,  beneficially,  the  account  of  Mr. 
Ployt,  and  no  other  officer,  as  all  moneys  received  were  paid  to  him  daily 
by  the  cashier,  and  the  books  of  that  officer  show  that  these  moneys  have 
actually  been  received." 

In  relation  to  the  manner  of  conducting  business  at  the  custom-house, 
between  the  years  1S29  and  1837,  while  Mr.  Swartwout  was  collector, 
and  to  his  alleged  defalcation  at  the  time  he  retired  from  that  office,  the 
-commissioners  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  enter  minutely  into  these 
matters.    The  elaborate  report  made  on  these  subjects  by  a  committee 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  January,  1839,  and  the  evidence  taken 
by  the  committee  having  been  printed  in  a  volume  for  the  use  of  Con- 
gress, it  would  have  been  a  waste  of  time,  and  have  incurred  a  useless 
iexpenditure,  if  the  commissioners  had  entered  at  large  into  a  re-examina- 
tion of  the  witnesses  who  testified  before  the  committee  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  whose  depositions  were  already  in  the  possession  of 
the  Government.    Some  additional  facts  have  been  elicited  by  the  inves- 
tigation of  the  commissioners,  since  the  return  of  Mr.  Swartwout  to  the 
United  States,  of  which  it  may  be  proper  to  present  a  summary  in  this 
report.    It  appeals  that  a  large  sum  was  received  by  the  cashier  and  as- 
sistant cashier  of  the  custom-house,  on  bonds  deposited  with  these  officers 
.  for  collection,  after  the  suspension  of  specie  payments  by  the  banks  in 
1837.  The  amount  of  these  bonds,  as  stated  by  the  auditor,  is  $609,525  71, 
the  whole  of  which,  it  appears  in  evidence,  was  received  by  the  cash- 
ier and  his  assistant.    Mr.  Phillips,  the  assistant  cashier,  in  his  deposition, 
taken  by  the  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  admits  that  all 
i  these  bonds  were  paid  at  the  cashier's  office,  but  charges  that  the  sums  so 
received  were  paid  over  to  Mr.  Swartwout,  as  collector.    This  allegation 
Mr.  Swartwout  has  denied,  on  oath,  before  the  commissioners;  and  he 
further  states,  that  he  neither  received  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  money 
.  collected  on  the  bonds  deposited  with  the  cashier,  nor  did  he  at  any  time 
give  any  order  respecting  the  entry  of  these  sums  on  the  cash  book,  nor 
any  other  order  to  a  subordinate  officer  of  the  custom-house  to  violate  his 
duty,  or  to  omit  the  performance  of  such  duty  as  required  by  law. 

Neither  the  cashier  or  his  assistant  can  produce  any  evidence  that  this 
large  sum  was  received  by  Mr.  Swartwout  on  his  drafts  or  checks,  or  that 
■<  it  was  paid  to  any  other  person  by  his  authority.    The  fact,  then,  being 
admitted,  that  the  money  was  received  at  the  office  of  the  cashier,  it  would 
seem  to  be  requisite,  on  the  part  of  that  officer  or  his  assistant,  to  show 
in  what  manner  it  was  disposed  of;  and,  if  paid  to  Mr.  Swartwout,  an 
i  entry  should  have  been  made  at  the  time  in  the  cash  book,  with  the  ini- 
tials attached  of  the  person  usually  intrusted  by  the  collector  to  receive 
such  payments.  In  the  absence  of  all  such  testimony,  the  question  arises, 
whether  the  responsibility  devolves  on  the  collector,  or  the  cashier  and 
his  assistant,  to  account  for  and  make  good  to  the  Government  this  large 
,  amount  of  money,  confessedly  received  at  the  cashier's  office,  on  whom, 
or  his  assistant,  it  is  incumbent  to  show,  by  satisfactory  vouchers,  the  pre- 
cise disposition  made  by  either  of  them  of  this  money,  to  acquit  themselves 


132 


Rep.  No.  669. 


of  the  imputation  of  having  applied  it  to  his  or  their  own  use.  It  is  un- 
derstood  that  a  suit  has  been  commenced  in  the  district  court  of  the  south- 
ern district  of  New  York,  in  the  name  of  the  United  States,  against 
Phillips,  the  assistant  cashier,  for  this  balance,  received  by  him,  as  he  ad- 
mits, and  the  payment  of  which  to  the  collector,  or  its  deposite  in  the 
bank  selected  for  that  purpose  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  it  re- 
mains for  him  to  establish,  in  defending  himself  against  a  recovery  by  the 
United  States  in  this  suit,  which  is  still  depending  and  undetermined.  Ii 
also  appears  that  a  considerable  amount  of  bonds,  originally  debited  tc 
Mr.  Swartwout,  have  been  paid  since  his  resignation  as  collector,  anc 
passed  to  his  credit  at  the  Treasury  Department. 

Under  all  the  circumstances  which  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
undersigned,  as  one  of  the  commissioners  of  investigation,  relating  to  the 
indebtedness  of  Samuel  Swartwout,  late  collector  of  the  port  of  New 
York,  it  would  seem  to  him  to  be  the  safest  and  most  practical  mode  o 
bringing  the  affairs  of  Mr.  Swartwout  to  a  final  close  at  the  Treasury,  t< 
authorize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  by  the  direction  of  the  Presi 
dent  of  the  United  States,  to  settle  and  adjust  the  accounts  of  Mr.  Swart 
wout  at  the  New  York  custom-house  on  principles  of  equity,  and  tha 
suitable  persons  be  appointed  to  make  such  settlement,  after  strict  and  ful 
examination  of  all  the  books,  papers,  and  accounts  of  said  Swartwout 
now  in  the  custody  of  the  collector  at  New  York,  and,  after  such  exami- 
nation, to  report  the  true  balance  which  may  be  found  due  and  owing  fron 
him  to  the  Government  of  the  United  States;  which  settlement  shall  be 
made  with  the  consent  and  approbation  of  said  Swartwout,  who  shal 
have  liberty  to  be  present  while  his  accounts  are  under  investigation  ;  ant 
the  report  of  the  sum  found  due  from  said  Swartwout,  for  moneys  re^ 
ceived  by  him  as  collector,  to  be  binding  both  on  him  and  the  Governmerr 
forever  thereafter.  It  would  farther  be  expedient  and  proper  to  authorize 
the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  after  the  indebtedness  of  Mr.  Swartwou 
sha  1  be  fully  and  fairly  ascertained,  to  take  such  steps,  and  enter  inte' 
such  arrangements  with  said  Swartwout,  to  secure  the  ultimate  pay  men 
of  the  sum  awarded  against  him,  as,  in  his  judgment,  may  be  necessar) 
and  proper  to  secure  the  ultimate  payment  thereof  at  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States. 

Since  Mr.  Swartwout  returned  from  Europe,  he  has  made  every  efTor 
in  his  power  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  Government  a  sufficient  amoun 
of  property  to  guaranty  the  ultimate  payment  of  such  sum  as  may  be 
found  deficient  in  his  receipts  and  payments  into  the  Treasury,  as  collectoi 
of  the  port  of  New  York.  But  there  does  not  seem  to  be  sufficient  povvei 
given  by  former  laws  to  the  Treasury  Department  to  authorize  such  ar' 
arrangement,  however  advantageous  it  might  be  to  the  Government  tc 
enter  into  it.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Swart- 
wout became  a  defaulter  at  the  Treasury,  whether  it  resulted  from  inten- 
tional error,  or  misfortunes  arising  out  of  negligence,  or  a  want  of  propei 
attention  to  his  subordinates,  it  is  certain  that  no  man  could,  under  like 
circumstances,  manifest  a  more  sincere  and  ardent  desire  to  restore  to  the 
Treasury  the  full  amount  which  may  be  found  due  from  him,  on  a  fair  and 
impartial  investigation  of  his  accounts.  It  is  believed  to  be  in  his  power 
to  give  the  Government  ample  security  for  the  ultimate  payment  of  hu 
indebtedness,  if  proper  authority  is  granted  to  the  Treasury  Department 
for  the  purpose.    This  can  only  be  done  by  a  special  act,  which  the  ur- 


Rep.  No.  669.  133 

;ency  of  the  case  and  the  interests  of  the  United  States  strongly  recom- 
nend  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  Congress. 

Having  brought  this  review  of  the  administration  of  the  custom-house 
n  New  York  down  to  the  close  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  term  of  service,  the  next 
ubject  to  be  examined  is  the  present  condition  of  the  custom-house,  and 
he  reforms,  if  any,  of  past  abuses  which  have  been  introduced  by 

EDWARD  CURTIS, 

vho  came  into  office  on  the  23d  of  March,  1841.  Mr.  Curtis  had  enter- 
ed upon  his  duties  as  collector  but  little  more  than  one  month  before  the 
itting  of  the  first  commission,  which  commenced  on  the  15th  of  May, 
;  84 1 .  The  laborious  investigations  which  the  commissioners  were  bound 
|o  make  into  the  former  practices  at  the  custom-house,  and  the  short  period 
vhich  had  elapsed  since  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Curtis,  combined  with 
ither  causes,  which  it  may  not  be  proper  here  to  enumerate,  operated  to 
prevent  a  strict  scrutiny  into  all  his  acts  as  collector  prior  to  the  final  ad- 
ournment  of  the  first  board  of  commissioners.  Some  attempts  were  made 
<o  introduce  witnesses  who  could  testify  to  matters  connected  with  the 
official  conduct  of  the  new  collector,  but  by  some  means  or  other  this  evi- 
dence was  not  taken  but  to  a  very  limited  extent.  So  far  as  testimony 
vas  taken  in  relation  to  the  conduct  of  the  present  collector,  for  the  short 
lime  he  had  occupied  the  office,  it  will  be  noticed  with  that  taken  under 
he  second  commission,  which  was  created  for  the  especial  purpose,  as 
therein  expressed,  of  examining  into  the  affairs  of  the  New  York  custom- 
house, " past  and  present."  It  may  be  useful  to  go  back  to  the  origin  of 
he  appointment  of  Mr.  Curtis,  to  inquire  into  the  influences  brought  to 
3ear  on  his  nomination,  and  the  purposes  expected  to  be  accomplished  by 
disappointment  to  the  office  of  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York.  The 
connexion  or  understanding  between  the  manufacturers  of  woollens  in 
New  England  and  Jesse  Hoyt,  late  collector,  to  advance  the  standard  of 
value  on  foreign  woollens,  and  thereby  increase  the  tariff  on  that  article, 
for  the  double  purpose  of  producing  pecuniary  profit  to  the  collector,  and, 
by  means  of  embarrassments  which  it  was  in  his  power  to  throw  in  the 
way  of  the  importation  of  woollens  into  the  port  of  New  Yoik,  to  break 
down  that  branch  of  foreign  commerce,  and  thereby  open  the  market  to  the 
domestic  manufacturer  of  woollens,  without  competition,  has  already  been 
fully  noticed  and  explained,  to  the  extent  of  the  evidence  given  on  that 
subject,  and  the  official  and  other  correspondence  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  during  his 
operations  under  his  system  of  seizures  and  compromises.  In  carrying  his 
plans  into  effect,  both  at  New  York  and  elsewhere,  of  seizing  and  libelling 
woollen  goods  imported  into  the  port  of  New  York,  for  alleged  frauds  on 
the  revenue,  by  means  of  undervaluations  and  false  invoices,  both  in  cases 
where  the  duties  demanded  at  the  custom-house  have  been  paid,  and 
where  the  seizures  were  made  before  the  entry  of  the  goods,  he  found  it 
convenient  to  engnge  the  services  of  two  individuals,  the  one  a  store- 
keeper at  the  public  store  in  Nassau  street,  and  the  other  an  inspector  of 
the  customs,  to  execute  his  orders  in  making  all  such  seizures,  and  giving 
evidence  in  court  whenever  called  on,  to  throw  the  onus  probandi  on  the 
claimant  of  the  goods,  to  show  their  actual  cost  at  the  place  whence  im- 
ported, or,  by  appraisements  or  reappraisements,  or  other  devices,  to  procure 
the  condemnation  of  the  goods  by  the  verdict  of  the  jury.  The  names 
of  these  individuals  are  George  A.  Wasson  and  William  Cairns,  who,  from 


134  Eep.  No.  669. 


the  peculiar  purposes  to  which  their  services  were  applied,  and  the  con- 
spicuous part  which  they  acted  under  the  administration  of  the  custom- 
house by  Mr.  Hoyt,  have  been  deemed  of  sufficient  importance  to  occupy 
a  pretty  large  space  in  the  preceding;  part  of  this  report.    The  exposition 
of  their  conduct  while  acting  under  the  orders  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  both  as  offi- 
cers of  the  customs  and  as  witnesses  in  court,  was  of  a  character  so  de- 
rogatory to  their  integrity  as  officers  and  to  their  verity  as  witnesses,  that 
it  very  soon  became  the  imperative  though  "painful"  duty  of  Mr.  Cur- 
tis to  dismiss  them  from  the  public  service,    it  was  alleged,  prior  to  and  > 
at  the  time  of  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Curtis,  that  he  was  particularly  i 
urged  on  the  late  President  Harrison  by  the  manufacturers  of  New  Eng- 
land, for  the  office  of  collector,  with  an  understanding,  previously  had,, 1 
that  he  would  carry  out  the  practices  of  his  predecessor,  and,  for  that  pur- 
pose, retain  in  the  custom-house  these  men,  Wasson  and  Cairns,  the  latter  < 
of  whom  it  was  designed  to  raise  to  the  office  of  principal  appraiser.  ! 
Without  offering  any  decided  opinion  on  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  this  alle- ■ 
gation,  it  will  be  sufficient  to  condense  extracts  from  the  depositions  of  the- ! 
several  witnesses  who  testified  on  this  subject,  including  those  of  several 
principal  manufacturers  of  woollens  at  Lowell  and  Boston. 

A.  Hyatt  Smith,  in  answer  to  a  question  put  to  him  concerning  the 
payment  of  money  on  the  compromise  of  suits  brought  against  a  number  " 
of  importers  of  foreign  woollens,  says  u  that  Mr.  Hoyt  apologized  to  Mr.  1 
Stone,  of  the  firm  of  Lawrence  &    Stone,  of  Boston,  for  compromising 
the  suits  commenced  by  him,  (  Hoyt,)  by  saying  that  he  had  no  evidence  by  '■ 
which  those  suits  could  be  maintained.    This  information  I  received  from  ! 
Thatcher  Tucker,  of  this  city,  a  commission  merchant,  who  sells  domestic  1 
goods,  who  said  that  Mr.  Stone  made  the  statement  to  him.    The  suits  : 
about  which  this  conversation  was  had  were  those  commenced  against 
John  Taylor,  jr.,  and  others,  for  alleged  violations  of  the  revenue  laws."' 
Mr.  Smith  further  states  that,  "  In  the  same  conversation,  or  a  short  time 
subsequent,  the  same  gentleman  informed  me  that  one  of  the  firm  of  A- 
&  A.  Lawrence,  or  Lawrence  &  Stone,  of  Boston,  I  cannot  now  recollect:  1 
which,  had  informed  him  that  it  was  settled,  through  the  influence  of  the 
Boston  houses,  last  fall,  previous  to  the  inauguration  of  the  President,  that 
Mr.  Curtis  was  to  receive  the  appointment  of  collector  of  the  port  of 
New  York,  and  that  he  or  his  influence  was  to  keep  Cairns  and  Wasson  : 
in  the  custom-house.    This  last  conversation  arose  out  of  an  application,  ! 
which  had  previously  been  made  to  him,  to  sign  a  recommendation  of  Meigs-  ' 
D.  Benjamin  for  the  office  of  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York."  Mr. 
Thatcher  Tucker,  who  is  referred  to  in  the  deposition  of  A.  Hyatt  Smith, 
extracts  from  which  are  given  above,  being  subsequently  examined,  on  (he 
19th  of  July,  1841,  states:  "  In  December  last,  I  was  in  Boston,  and  in 
the  counting  house  of  Messrs.  Lawrence  &  Stone.    The  subject  of  the  ' 
custom-house  appointments,  for  the  city  of  New  York,  came  up.    It  was  1 
a  subject  in  which  we  both  felt  an  interest— Mr.  Stone  as  a  manufacturer, 
and  I  as  an  impoiter.    Mr.  Stone  inquired  of  me  my  opinion  in  regard 
to  the  various  candidates  that  were  named  for  collector.    In  reply,  I  men- 
tioned that  1  preferred  Mr.  Curtis,  from  the  slight  knowledge  I  had  of 
him.    Mr.  Stone  agreed  with  me  in  opinion,  arid  stated  also  that  Mr. 
Curtis  was  his  choice.    He  also  stated  that  he  thought  some  of  the  other 
officers  then  in  the  custom  house  had  proved  themselves  efficient  officers, 
and  I  understood  him  to  express  his  wish  that  they  should  be  retained. 


Kep.  No.  669. 


135 


The  officers  alluded  to  were,  as  I  understood,  attached,  or  were  to  be 
attached,  to  the  appraiser's  department.  To  the  best  of  my  recollection, 
the  persons  named  were  Cairns  and  Wasson.  At  a  subsequent  interview 
Avith  Mr.  Stone,  which  took  place  in  New  York  in  February  or  March, 
J  think  in  the  former  month,  but  am  not  positive,  the  same  subject  was 
renewed.  Mr.  Stone  then  expressed  his  expectations  that  Mr.  Curtis 
would  be  appointed  as  collector,  and  that  the  two  gentlemen  above  named, 
Messrs.  Cairns  and  Wasson,  would  be  retained  in  office."  The  witness 
further  states,  that  it  was  his  impression  that  Mr.  Stone  represented  the 
wishes  of  the  manufacturing  interests  of  Boston  and  Lowell.  The  fifth 
question  put  to  Mr.  Tucker  by  the  commissioners  is  in  the  following 
words : 

"  Did  you  ever  state  to  A.  H.  Smith  that  Mr.  Stone,  of  the  house  of 
Lawrence  &  Stone,  of  Boston,  informed  you  that  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector, 
had  apologized  to  him  for  compromising  the  suits  commenced  by  Hoyt 
against  a  number  of  importing  merchants,  by  saving  that  he  had  no  evi- 
dence by  which  those  suits  could  be  maintained  ?* 

To  which  the  witness  replied  : 

"  Mr.  Stone,  of  the  house  of  Lawrence  &  Stone,  of  Boston,  stated  to 
ime  that  he  had  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector,  and  had 
expressed  his  surprise  that  the  Yorkshire  importers  who  had  been  prose- 
cuted were  still  importing  goods  ;  that  Mr.  Hoyt  replied,  that  he  had 
compromised  a  number  of  these  prosecutions  or  suits,  and  had  received 
about  .$70,000  of  them  ;  and  assigned  as  a  reason  for  compromising,  that 
the  suits  could  not  be  maintained  or  successfully  prosecuted  on  the  part 
the  United  States.  The  substance  of  this  conversation  I  probably  related 
to  Mr.  Smith,  with  whom  I  recollect  to  have  had  some  conversation  on 
this  subject."  The  deposition  of  Mr.  Stone,  hereinbefore  referred  to, 
sustains,  substantially,  the  above  statement  of  his  conversation  with  Mr. 
Tucker;  but  he  adds  that  Mr.  Hoyt  informed  him  that  these  importers 
had  "  paid  the  fiddler."  Mr.  Lounsberry,  an  assistant  appraiser  in  the 
the  woollens  loft,  testifies  that  Mr.  Stone,  on  his  return  from  a  visit  to  the 
city  of  Washington,  in  the  month  of  March,  called  on  Mr.  Cairns,  who 
was  employed  in  that  loft,  and,  in  the  presence  of  the  witness,  said  to  Mr- 
Cairns:  UI  have  been  to  Washington,  and  it  is  all  settled  or  fixed;"  which 
expressions,  and  other  parts  oi  the  conversation,  the  witness  understood  to 
mean,  that  Mr.  Curtis  was  to  be  appointed  collector,  and  that  he  (Mr- 
Cairns)  was  to  be  continued  in  the  appraiser's  department.  Mr.  Samuel 
Lawrence,  in  his  deposition  taken  before  the  commissioners,  states  that, 
about  the  time  Mr.  Curtis  received  the  appointment  of  collector,  he  wrote 
to  him  that  he  was  acquainted  with  two  persons  in  the  New  York  custom- 
house, Cairns  and  Wasson,  whom  he  believed  to  be  competent,  faithful,, 
and  upright  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties  ;  and  that  he  believed  Mr. 
Curtis  would  be  doing  the  public  great  good  by  retaining  them  in  office. 
In  another  part  of  this  testimony,  he  says  :  u  I  strongly  urged  the  retaining 
of  Messrs.  Wasson  and  Cairns;  but  that,  excepting  himself  and  his  part- 
ner, Mr.  Stone,  he  did  not  think  these  persons  were  known  to  any  man- 
ufacturers of  New  England,  and  that  he  did  not  believe  any  effort  was 
made  by  this  class  to  retain  them  in  office,  except  by  himself  and  Mr- 
Stone,  his  partner."  The  solicitude  manifested  by  these  large  manufactur- 
ers of  domestic  w7oollens,  who  assumed  to  speak  in  behalf  of  this  class 
generally,  to  retain  in  office  two  obscure  subordinates  in  the  New  York 


138 


Rep.  No.  669. 


custom-house,  is  well  calculated  to  sustain  the  belief  that  an  arrangement, 
such  as  is  mentioned  by  Smith  and  Tucker,  as  derived  from  Mr.  Stone, 
had  actually  been  matured,  and  that  the  purposes  to  be  accomplished  by 
retaining;  them  in  office  was  a  perpetuation  of  the  system  of  seizures  adopt- 
ed by  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  in  the  prosecution  of  which  the  services  of  these 
men  were  indispensable.    But  whether  the  continuance  in  office  of  Was- 
son  and  Cairns  by  Mr.  Curtis,  the  new  collector,  was  a  matter  of  arrange- 
ment and  previous  understanding,  between  him  and  the  woollen  manu- 
facturers of  New  England  or  not,  the  result  strongly  enforces  such  a  con- 
clusion, for,  in  point  of  fact,  they  were  continued  in  office  by  Mr.  Curtis  ; 
and  at  the  time  the  commissioners  commenced  their  investigation  into  the 
affairs  of  the  New  York  custom-house,  they  found  the  whole  machinery  put 
in  operation  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  to  break  down  the  commerce  of  that  port  in  foreign 
woollens,  precisely  in  the  same  condition,  in  all  respects  whatever,  as  it  was 
when  Mr.  Hoyt  left  the  office  of  collectoi.  No  intimation  of  an  intention  to 
change  it,  especially  in  respect  to  these  two  favorites  of  the  manufactur- 
es, was  made  known  to  the  commissioners,  if  any  such  intention  existed 
in  the  mind  of  Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector.    On  the  contrary,  it  was  distinct- 
ly understood  that  they  were  to  be  retained  in  office.    If  any  doubt  could 
exist  on  ihe  subject,  it  w7ould  be  removed  by  the  contents  of  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Curtis  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  dated  May  10th,  1841,  in 
which  he  says,  speaking  of  charges  which  had  been  preferred  against 
William  Cairns,  to  prevent  his  appointment  as  a  principal  appraiser  : 
"  My  opinion  is,  that  Mr.  Cairns  is  perfectly  innocent,  and  that  his 
successful  and  very  efficient  discharge  of  his  duty  has  subjected  him 
to   a  vindictive  persecution  from  a  body  of  foreigners  and  dishon- 
est importers,  whose  evil  practices  he  has  detected  and  exposed." 
Thus  Mr.  Curtis  lends  himself  to  one  of  the  purposes  contemplated 
by  his  appointment  to  the  office  of  collector,  and,  with  a  view  of  sustaining 
Mr.  Cairns  in  his  position  at  the  custom-house,  ascribes  to  him  the  pecu- 
liar merit  of  having  subjected  himself  to  vindictive  persecutions  from  a 
body  of  foreigners  and  dishonest  importers,  whose  evil  practices  he  detect- 
ed and  exposed  ;  and  concerning  these  evil  practices  of  the  same  import- 
ers, who  had  fallen  under  the  suspicion  of  the  late  collector,  in  some  degree 
through  the  agency  of  this  Mr.  Cairns,  who  had  so  highly  commended 
himself  to  the  favor  of  Mr.  Curtis,  Mr.  Hoyt,  after  obtaining  from  them 
under  suits  or  threatened  suits,  for  pretended  violation  of  the  revenue  laws, 
more  than  $70,000,  says  to  Mr.  Stone,  of  Boston,  "that  he  had  compro- 
mised with  them  for  the  reason  that  the  suits  could  not  be  maintained  or 
successfully  prosecuted  on  the  part  of  the  United  States."    So  that  Mr. 
Cairns,  according  to  Mr.  Curtis,  is  to  be  credited  for  having  detected  evil 
practices  on  the  part  of  these  importers,  of  the  existence  of  which  Mr. 
Hoyt  admits  there  is  no  evidence  to  sustain  a  recovery  in  behalf  of  the 
United  States!    The  innocence  of  Mr.  Cairns,  so  boldly  asserted  by  Mr. 
Curtis,  was  converted  by  the  evidence  of  many  witnesses  examined  be- 
fore the  commissioners,  and  even  by  his  own  testimony,  into  the  most  glar- 
ing and  palpable  guilt,  which  frustrated  the  design  of  retaining  him  in  the 
appraiser's  department,  and  of  carrying  on  through  him  the  persecutions 
commenced  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  on  a  class  of  foreign  importers,  for  the  unworthy 
purpose  of  extorting  large  sums  of  money  from  them,  and  then  making  the 
open  declaration  that  there  was  no  evidence  on  which  they  could  be  con- 
victed of  any  infraction  of  the  revenue  laws.    It  is  a  singular  fact  in  rela- 


Rep.  No.  669.  137 


tion  to  this  particular  branch  of  inquiry,  that  not  only  the  appointment  of 
a  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York  was  made  under  the  influence  and  by 
the  exertions  of  (he  domestic  manufacturers  of  New  England,  but,  in  all 
cases  where  a  difficulty  arose  in  the  selection  of  the  most  subordinate  of- 
ficers of  the  customs,  especially  in  the  appraiser's  department,  an  appeal 
was  made  directly  to  the  manufacturing  interests,  by  the  parties,  to  turn 
the  scale  in  favor  of  those  who  could  be  relied  on  to  embarrass  foreign 
commerce,  and  thereby  favor  that  interest.  For  this  purpose,  George  A. 
Wasson,  a  public  storekeeper,  who  stood  in  his  official  relations  to  the 
custom  house  far  below  the  notice  of  any  distinguished  citizen  residing  in 
a  neighboring  city,  and  who  has  since  been  expelled  from  office  for  his 
crimes,  when  he  desired  to  fill  the  appraiser's  department  with  persons 
suited  to  his  own  views  and  preferences,  instead  of  addressing  himself  to  the 
mercantile  community  of  New  York,  to  obtain  their  sanction,  or  directly  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  made  bis  appeal  to  Mr.  Abbot  Lawrence,  of 
Boston,  connected  with  the  manufacturers  of  woollens,  to  sustain  him  in  his 
recommendations  ;  and  the  result  proves  that  he  was  not  mistaken  in  thus 
resorting  to  foreign  aid  to  control  even  the  humblest  appointment  in  the 
New  York  custom-house.  In  his  letter  to  Mr.  Lawrence  of  the  1 5th  March, 
1841,  which  is  hereto  appended,  (see  Appendix  P,)  he  asks  nothing 
for  himself,  for  the  plain  reason  that  there  was  no  office  of  the  customs 
which  could  compensate  him  for  the  emoluments  derived  from  cartage  and 
labor,  which  he  enjoyed  under  Mr.  Hovt,  and  expected  to  enjoy  under 
Mr.  Curtis,  the  new  collector  ;  but  he  recommends  three  individuals  to 
Mr.  Lawrence,  for  the  appraiser's  department,  who  had  been  active  in- 
struments in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  the  appraisement  of  foreign  wool- 
lens and  raising  the  invoices  so  as  to  subject  them  to  seizure,  which  letter 
was  filed  by  the  gentleman  to  whom  it  was  addressed  with  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  ;  and,  as  far  as  the  files  of  the  Department  furnish  informa- 
tion, on  this  recommendation  alone,  two  of  the  three  persons  referred  to 
(to  wit,  Kichard  B.  Brown  and  Cornelius  Savage)  were  appointed  as- 
sistant appraisers,  and  the  third,  being  William  Cairns,  whom  he  recom- 
mended as  a  principal  appraiser,  was  defeated  by  the  investigation  insti- 
tuted almost  simultaneously  in  the  press  of  the  city  of  New  York  into  his 
past  conduct.  It  would  strike  any  one  with  surprise  to  be  informed  that  cit- 
izens of  Philadelphia  or  New  York  weie  applied  to,  and  exercised  a  con- 
trolling influence  with  the  Treasury  Department,  in  filling  the  various  of- 
fices in  the  custom-house  at  Boston,  or  at  any  other  port  And  yet  such  an 
unwarrantable  interference  in  these  appointments,  coming  from  any  quar- 
ter whatever,  would  not  be  more  remarkable  than  the  acknowledged  in- 
fluence which  the  manufacturers  of  Boston  and  Lowell  craimed  and  exer- 
cised in  appointments  of  every  grade  at  the  custom-house  in  New  York. 
The  end  to  be  accomplished  cannot  be  mistaken,  and  it  is  left,  on  the  ev- 
idence adduced,  to  the  judgment  of  those  who  administer  the  Government 
to  determine  whether  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Curtis  to  the  office  of  collect- 
or was  made  under  these  influences,  and  with  the  understanding  that  the 
selected  favorites  of  the  manufacturers  of  woollens  in  New  England 
should  be  retained  in  office  for  the  benefit  of  that  class,  or  others  appoint- 
ed to  subserve  their  views  and  purposes.  The  examination  into  the  of- 
ficial conduct  of  Mr.  Curtis,  so  far  as  it  may  be  deemed  necessary  and 
proper,  will  be  confined  strictly  to  the  testimony  taken  by  the  commission- 
ers, and  the  official  letters  and  other  papers  furnished  by  the  collector  on 


138 


Rep.  No.  669. 


the  call  of  the  board.  The  commissioners  were  informed  at  the  moment 
of  their  appointment,  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  that  the  collector 
was  instructed  to  give  every  aid  and  facility  in  his  power  to  their  investi- 
gation, and  to  supply  them  with  any  books,  papers,  or  accounts,  which 
might  be  found  in  his  office,  or  any  department  of  the  custom-house.  In 
the  progress  of  the  business  confided  to  them,  the  commissioners,  as  a  board, 
had  seldom  occasion  to  call  on  or  consult  Mr.  Curtis,  and  therefore  most 
of  his  communications,  if  he  made  any,  respecting  the  conduct  of  his  pre- 
decessors in  office,  were  made  in  conversations  with  particular  members 
of  the  board,  of  whom  the  undersigned  was  not  one  who  enjoyed  the  ben- 
efit of  such  communications.  But  finding,  at  an  early  day  of  their  sittings, 
that  full  and  complete  copies  of  the  official  letters  of  the  late  collector 
(Hoyt)  to  the  Treasury  Department  and  the  law  officers  of  the  Govern- 
ment, with  the  answers  thereto,  were  in  a  course  of  publication  in  a  news- 
paper called  "  the  Standard,"  published  in  the  city  of  New  York,  and 
being  impressed  with  the  belief  that  this  correspondence  was,  or  ought  to 
be,  in  the  custody  of  Mr.  Curtis,  his  successor,  as  appertaining  to  his  of- 
fice, the  commissioners  felt  it  to  be  their  duty  to  address  the  following  let- 
ter to  the  collector  : 

New  York,  June  28,  1841. 
Sir:  We  have  noticed  in  the  Standard  the  publication  of  several  letters 
of  Mr.  Jesse  Hoyt,  late  collector  of  this  port,  purporting  to  be  official,  as 
well  as  some  letters  directed  to  him  in  his  official  capacity.  We  deem  it 
proper  to  draw  your  attention  to  the  circumstance,  and  to  ask  of  you,  in 
your  official  character,  whether  copies  of  the  letters  above  referred  to 
have  been  furnished  by  any  officer  of  the  customs,  or  whether  you  are  in- 
formed, and  have  reason  to  believe,  that  Mr.  Hoyt  retained  possession  of 
these  letters,  or  had  copies  taken  before  he  left  the  office  ? 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  lespectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 
ALFRED  KELLEY. 
WM.  M.  STEtJART. 
To  Edward  Curtis,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 

To  this  letter  Mr.  Curtis  replied  on  the  same  day,  protesting  that  he 
had  never  read  in  the  Standard  the  official  letters  mentioned  by  the  com- 
missioners, or  that  he  had  ever  seen  these  letters  in  the  original.  He 
then  states  that  he  is  informed  and  believes  that  "  Mr.  Hoyt  retained  in 
his  possession,  atfthe  time  Mr.  Morgan  came  into  office  as  his  successor, 
the  most  of  his  correspondence  with  the  various  departments  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, and  now  retains  it."  Other  matters  relating  to  the  official  cor- 
respondence of  Mr.  Hoyt  are  mentioned  in  his  reply,  but  the  above  ex- 
tract, denying  that  any  such  correspondence  was  to  be  found  at  the  custom- 
house, put  an  end  to  all  further  inquiry  on  the  subject.  The  commissioners 
of  course  took  it  for  granted,  on  the  receipt  of  the  letter  of  the  collector, 
that  Mr.  Hoyt  had  taken  with  him  the  greater  part  of  his  official  letters, 
as  collector,  at  the  time  he  retired,  and  Mr.  Morgan  succeeded  him.  It 
w7as  evident  that  the  possession  of  this  correspondence  was  either  with 
Mr.  Hoyt,  or  that  copies  had  been  furnished  to  him  by  some  officer  of  the 
customs,  which  is  explicitly  denied  by  Mr.  Curtis.  The  duties  of  the 
commissioners  would  have  been  greatly  lessened,  and  their  means  of  in- 


Rep.  Xo.  669. 


139 


formation  much  enlarged,  by  having  before  them  the  whole  of  Mr.  Hoyt's 
official  letters  to  the  Treasury  Department  and  the  district  attorney.  They 
would  have  led  directly  to  the  material  subjects  to  be  investigated,  and 
disclosed  the  views  entertained  by  the  collector  on  these  subjects,  as 
well  as  the  opinions  of  the  Department  in  relation  to  his  official  conduct 
generally.  With  these  lights  to  guide  them,  much  of  the  time  occupied 
by  the  board  in  taking  testimony  would  have  been  saved,  and  a  corres- 
ponding diminution  in  the  expenses  of  the  commission  would  have  resulted, 
if  they  had  been  put  in  possession  of  that  correspondence  during  their  first 
session.  But  all  hope  of  obtaining  it  vanished  on  being  informed  by  Mr. 
Curtis  that  it  had  been  taken  away  by  Mr.  Hoyt  when  heietired  from  the 
office  of  collector. 

At  the  opening  of  the  second  session  of  the  commissioners,  on  the  25th 
day  of  October,  1841,  the  necessity  of  being  possessed  of  the  correspond- 
ence before  referred  to  was  strongly  impressed  on  the  minds  of  some  of 
the  commissioners,  if  not  on  the  entire  board.  Accordingly  a  resolution 
was  adopted  unanimously  on  the  25th  day  of  November,  1841,  calling  on 
the  collector  for  the  records  of  the  official  correspondence  between  Jesse 
Hoyt  and  the  Treasury  Department.  This  order  was  complied  with,  and 
the  whole  of  the  volumes  containing  the  correspondence  of  the  late  col- 
lector were  furnished  to  the  commissioners  by  Mr.  Curtis,  on  the  27th  of 
the  same  month.  He  subsequently  sent  to  the  commissioners  copies  of 
several  letters,  which  passed  between  himself  and  Jesse  Hoyt,  relating  to 
the  custody  of  these  books  of  correspondence.  The  first  of  the  series 
bears  date  July  7,  1841,  from  Mr.  Curtis  to  Mr.  Hoyt;  the  answer  to 
which  bears  date  July  8.  The  reply  of  Mr.  Curtis  to  Mr.  Hoyt  is  of  the 
same  date,  and  the  answer  of  Mr.  Hoyt  is  dated  July  the  9th,  which  ap- 
pears to  have  closed  their  correspondence  on  this  subject.  These  letters 
form  a  part  of  the  appendix  to  this  report,  and  are  referred  to  for  more 
particular  information  of  their  contents.  Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  first  letter, 
states,  on  the  authority  of  Mr.  Gillelan,  a  copying  clerk  in  his  office,  to 
Mr.  Hoyt,  that  he  had  retained  several  official  letter  books,  containing  his 
correspondence  with  the  various  departments  of  the  Government,  and 
proceeds  to  class  them  under  the  following  heads  : 

1st.  The  collector's  official  correspondence  with  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury. 

2d.  Miscellaneous  official  correspondence  of  the  collector. 

3d.  Correspondence  with  the  law  officers  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Curtis  then  proceeds  to  inform  Mr.  Hoyt  that  he  considered  it  his 
duty  to  request  him  forthwith  to  deposite  in  the  collector's  office  the  books 
of  official  correspondence  above  mentioned.  On  the  next  day  Mr.  Hoyt 
states  that  "Mr.  Gillelan  is  entirely  mistaken.  It  is  true,  several  of 
these  volumes  are  in  the  auditor's  office,  and  I  believe  they  go  regularly 
down  to  the  vault  every  night ;  and  they  are  now  in  the  box  in  which 
they  go  up  and  down  to  that  vault  daily." 

Mr.  Hoyt,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Hone,  a  deputy  collector,  who  seemed  to 
consider  these  books  his  property,  and  who  offered  to  return  one  of  the 
volumes  to  him,  stated  :  "  1  told  him  they  were  not  mine,  but  belonged  to 
the  office,  and  so  1  have  always  considered  ;  but  my  right  of  access  to 
them  I  do  not  understand  you  as  objecting  to."  He  further  informs  Mr. 
Curtis  that  "the  requisition  to  deposite  them  forthwith  in  your  office  is 
quite  unnecessary,  for  they  are  already  in  your  legal  custody,  as  I  have 


140 


Rep.  No.  669 


before  stated."  On  the  same  day  Mr.  Curtis  replied  to  Mr.  Hoyt  as  fol- 
lows :  "  Mr.  Gillelan  informs  me  that,  some  time  since,  Mr.  Fleming  in- 
formed him  that  you  had  directed  that  the  correspondence  should  not  be 
sent  down  to  my  office.  Mr.  Fleming  also  informed  me  that  you  retained 
the  correspondence,  and  that  you  had  it  locked  up  in  your  case."  In 
answer  to  this  letter,  which  controverts  the  verity  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  statement 
that  these  books  were  already  in  the  legal  custody  of  Mr.  Curtis,  and  had 
never  been  taken  out  of  the  custom-house  by  him,  and  further  that  he  had 
no  claim  to  them,  Mr.  Hoyt  says:  "I  have  shown  your  letter  to  Mr. 
Fleming,  who  says  that  Mr.  Gillelan  misunderstood  him.  I  never  gave 
any  such  direction  to  Mr.  Fleming,  for  the  best  of  all  reasons — I  had  no 
right  do  so.  It  is  quite  true  that  1  have,  on  some  occasions,  put  two  or 
three  of  the  books,  as  a  matter  of  convenience,  in  the  desk  at  which  I 
have  been  in  the  habit  of  sitting  in  the  auditor's  office,  but  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  withholding  them  from  you." 

*'  There  are,  I  believe,  about  thirteen  volumes  in  all ;  there  are  vacan- 
cies in  the  desk  referred  to  for  three  volumes,  which  is  all  there  has  been 
at  any  one  time,  and  the  others  have  lain  loose  on  the  tables,  except  at 
night,  when  they  have  been  sent  to  the  vault.  There  has  not  been,  I 
think,  over  six  volumes  at  one  time  in  the  auditor's  office,  and  Mr. 
Fleming  must  certainly,  therefore,  have  been  mistaken  in  supposing  that 
I  had  the  correspondence  locked  up,  and  certainly  the  idea  never  oc- 
curred to  me  that  I  had  any  just  control  over  it,  further  than  to  elucidate 
my  own  communications  with  the  office." 

On  this  subject  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor,  was  examined,  and  the  fol- 
lowing question  put  to  him  by  the  commissioners  :  "  Was  the  official  cor- 
respondence, recently  sent  to  the  commissioners,  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  late 
collector  of  the  customs,  contained  in  fifteen  volumes,  ever  out  of  the 
possession  of  the  collector  for  the  time  being;  and,  il  so,  under  what  cir- 
cumstances, and  for  what  period  or  time?"  To  which  he  answered:  "I 
do  not  know  of  any  instance  when  the  correspondence  alluded  to  was  ever 
out  of  the  possession  of  the  collector  for  the  time  being." 

From  the  preceding  analysis  of  the  letters  which  passed  between  Mr. 
Curtis  and  Mr.  Hoyt,  taken  in  connexion  with  the  letter  of  Mr.  Curtis  to 
the  commissioners,  it  appears — 

1st.  That,  on  the  28th  of  June,  Mr.  Curtis  states  that  he  is  informed 
and  believes  that  Mr.  Hoyt  retained  in  his  possession  the  most  of  his 
official  correspondence  with  the  various  departments  of  the  Government, 
at  the  time  Mr.  Morgan  came  into  office  as  his  successor. 

2d.  That,  on  the  7th  of  July,  Mr.  Curtis  enumerates  the  books  of  cor- 
respondence so  alleged  to  have  been  retained,  and  demands  that  they  be 
forthwith  deposited  in  his  office. 

3d.  On  the  day  following,  Mr.  Hoyt  informed  Mr.  Curtis  that  his  requi- 
sition to  deposite  these  books  of  correspondence  forthwith  in  his  office 
"  was  quite  unnecessary,  for  they  are  already  in  your  legal  custody." 

4th.  On  the  same  day,  Mr.  Curtis,  on  the  authority,  as  he  alleges,  of 
Mr.  Gillelan  and  Mr.  Fleming,  charges  that  Mr.  Hoyt  had  directed  Mr. 
Fleming  not  to  send  down  to  his  office  these  books  of  correspondence, 
and  that  Mr.  Hoyt  retained  the  books,  and  had  them  locked  up  in  his  own 
case. 

5th.  Mr.  Hoyt,  on  the  9th  of  July,  gives  a  detailed  denial  of  the  above 
charges,  and  avers  that  "  Mr.  Fleming  must  certainly  have  been  mistaken 


Rep.  No.  669. 


141 


in  supposing  that  I  had  the  correspondence  locked  up,  and  certainly  the 
idea  never  occurred  to  me  that  1  had  any  just  control  over  it." 

Thus,  on  the  9th  of  July,  1841,  Mr.  Curtis  had  in  his  own  office  all 
these  volumes  of  correspondence,  which,  on  the  28th  of  June,  he  informed 
the  commissioners  Mr.  Hoyt  had  retained,  when  he  went  out  of  office. 
He  kept  this  fact  concealed  from  the  board  until  it  was  drawn  out  at  the 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  commissioners  in  November,  1841,  when,  on  a 
call  of  the  commissioners,  the  facts  were  disclosed  as  above  given,  and  the 
books  sent  to  them  from  the  custom-house.  These  books,  Mr.  Fleming, 
the  auditor,  states  on  oath,  were  never  at  any  time  out  of  the  possession 
of  the  collector  for  the  time  being.  The  question  arises,  did  Mr.  Curtis 
know,  on  the  28th  of  June,  when  he  asserted  officially  to  the  commission- 
ers, that  Mr.  Hoyt  had  retained  the  most  of  his  correspondence  with  the 
various  departments  of  the  Government,  that  these  15  volumes  of  that 
same  correspondence  were  in  the  custom-house  ?  The  most  that  can  be 
said  to  acquit  him  of  this  knowledge  is  the  fact  mentioned  by  Mr.  Hoyt, 
that  six  of  the  volumes  were  in  the  office  of  the  auditor,  where  he  had  a 
desk  assigned  to  him,  the  remainder  of  the  volumes  being  always  in  the 
room  occupied  by  the  collector.  But  it  is  known  to  all  who  are  familiar 
with  the  business  of  the  custom-house  that  the  collector  spends  a  part  of 
each  day  in  the  auditor's  office,  where  these  volumes  lay  loose  on  the 
tables,  and  must,  therefore,  have  passed  under  his  observation.  The  re- 
maining nine  volumes  were  in  his  own  room,  and  it  would  seem  could  not 
have  been  unknown  to  him;  and,  if  Mr.  Fleming  is  to  be  believed,  the 
whole  of  these  books  were  at  no  time  out  of  the  possession  of  Mr.  Curtis. 
On  what  ground,  then,  either  of  fact  or  inference,  can  Mr.  Curtis  justify 
his  declaration,  made  on  the  28th  of  June,  that  most  of  this  correspond- 
ence had  been  retained  by  Mr.  Hoyt?  If  it  was  an  official  deception 
practised  on  the  commissioners,  to  conceal  the  correspondence  from  their 
view,  will  it  be  overlooked  or  approved  by  the  Executive  ?  There  can 
be  no  difficulty  in  arriving  at  a  just  conclusion  on  these  points,  by  a  care- 
ful and  candid  examination  of  the  evidence  herein  furnished. 

It  is  a  singular  feature  in  the  history  of  these  transactions,  that,  after 
Mr.  Hoyt  had  utterly  disclaimed,  in  his  correspondence  with  Mr.  Curtis, 
either  that  he  had  possession  of  the  books  containing  his  official  letters  to 
the  various  departments  of  the  Government,  or  that  he  had  any  right  or 
pretension  whatever  to  control  them,  averring  most  positively  that  they 
belonged  to  the  office,  and  were  in  the  legal  custody  of  the  collector,  he, 
on  the  27th  day  of  November,  1841,  after  Mr.  Curtis  had  sent  them  to  the 
commissioners,  made  a  formal  demand  of  them  as  his  private  property. 
He  says  :  "  The  bearer  is  authorized  to  receive  them  from  you,  and  to  de- 
mand the  possession  of  them.  The  original  letters  from  the  Department 
to  me  I  left  on  file  in  the  custom-house,  where  I  presume  they  now  are, 
and  the  originals  from  me  no  doubt  on  file  in  the  Treasury  Department. 
The  copies  of  both  are  my  private  property,  and,  as  I  require  the  use  of 
them,  at  this  moment,  you  will  of  couise  not  hesitate  to  send  them  to  me. 
They  consist  of  15  volumes."  This  demand  he  has  continued  to  make, 
through  the  collector  and  in  his  own  name,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Tieas- 
ury,  in  defiance  of  his  own  admissions  before  referred  to.  These  books, 
while  they  remained  in  the  possession  of  the  collector,  excited  none  of  his 
apprehensions,  for  they  were  accessible  to  him,  and  to  no  other  person,  he 
having  enjoyed  the  privilege  of  a  desk  and  other  accommodations  in  the 


142 


Rep.  No.  669. 


auditor's  office,  from  the  time  Mr.  Curtis  entered  on  his  duties  as  collect- 
or, up  to  a  very  late  period,  and  perhaps  at  the  present  moment.  But 
his  solicitude  to  reclaim  them  out  of  the  hands  of  the  commissioners  may 
be  readily  accounted  for,  on  the  ground  that  they  contained  disclosures  of 
his  official  acts,  which  could  not  well  bear  the  light,  and  which  he  feared 
would,  through  this  medium,  be  exposed  to  the  public  gaze.  It  is  a  fact 
which  it  may  be  proper  here  to  notice,  that  the  withholding  of  these  vol- 
umes from  the  commissioners  at  their  first  session,  and  the  manner  in 
which  they  have  been  disposed  of  since  the  27th  of  November  last,  has 
been  a  principal  cause  of  the  delay  which  has  intervened  in  completing 
this  report  and  closing  the  duties  of  the  commission. 

A  comparative  statement  of  the  expenditures  at  the  custom-house, 
during  the  term  of  office  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  and  of  Edward  Curtis  since  his 
appointment,  has  already  been  given  to  some  extent.  That  subject  will 
now  be  resumed  and  completed.  The  organization  of  the  official  corps, 
as  it  existed  under  Mr.  Hoyt,  had  undergone  no  material  change  at  the 
time  the  commissioners  commenced  their  investigation,  and  so  continued 
until  the  removal  of  George  A.  VVasson,  public  storekeeper  and  deputy 
collector,  which  took  place,  as  before  stated,  on  the  4th  of  June,  1841. 
The  enormous  charges  for  cai tage  and  labor  remained  the  same  up  to  that 
period  ;  the  indefinite  bills  of  VVasson,  without  specification  or  voucher, 
were  approved  by  the  auditor  and  paid  by  Mr.  Curtis,  in  the  same  manner, 
in  all  respects  whatever,  as  they  had  been  by  Mr.  Hoyt.  It  is  true,  as 
hereinbefore  stated,  that  Mr.  Curtis,  on  the  2d  day  of  June,  1841,  in- 
formed the  commissioners,  in  an  official  letter  addressed  to  them,  that  he 
had  reformed  the  system  of  payments  under  this  head  of  expenditure,  and 
that,  instead  of  the  large  advances  made  to  VVasson  under  the  previous 
practice,  he  had  adopted  the  plan  of  making  these  advances  in  small  sums 
to  the  clerk  at  the  public  store,  who  would  of  course  be  held  accountable, 
from  time  to  time,  for  their  proper  disbursement.  But  this  reform,  which 
would  have  doubtless  been  productive  of  salutary  results,  because  the 
clerk  would  have  been  required  to  produce  to  the  collector  the  bills  and 
receipts  on  which  his  payments  were  made,  thereby  showing  the  amount 
of  labor  performed  and  the  name  of  the  laborer  who  performed  it,  as  well 
as  the  charges  for  cartage,  made  out  in  bills  with  detailed  specifications, 
seems  not  to  have  been  made  at  the  time,  or,  if  made,  it  was  certainly  not 
carried  into  practical  operation,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  following  bill,  paid 
to  George.  A.  Waston  only  two  days  thereafter,  and  on  the  very  day  of  his 
removal  from  office  : 

The  United  States  to  George  A.  PTasson,  Dr. 

To  amount  of  cartage  and  labor  paid  by  him  at  public  store  No.  17,  Nas- 
sau street,  from  1st  April  to  28th  May,  1841,  inclusive  : 

To  paid  for  cartage       -  -  -     $2,368  05 

"        "      labor  -  -  -       2,305  91 


4,673  96 


New  York,  4th  June,  1841.    Received  the  above  in  full. 

GEORGE  A.  VVASSON. 


Eep.  No.  669. 


143 


This  bill  does  not  appear  to  have  been  authenticated  or  verified  in  any 
other  manner  than  the  sweeping  statement  of  Wasson,  unsupported  by 
vouchers  of  any  description  whatever.  It  was  incurred  in  the  space  of 
fifty  laboring  days,  and  amounts  to  forty-seven  dollars  per  day  for  cartage, 
and  forty-six  dollars  per  clay  for  labor.  What  portion  of  this  sum  was 
actually  received  by  the  laborers  and  cartmen  does  not  appear,  but  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  a  large  part  of  it  went  into  the  pocket  of  the  public 
storekeeper,  for  his  own  use  and  benefit.  The  means  of  ascertaining  the 
exact  sum  paid  by  the  storekeeper  is  not  furnished,  the  items  of  the  va- 
rious accounts  not  being  given  ;  and,  in  this  instance,  the  sum  of  $4,673  96 
was  paid  by  Mr.  Cuitis  to  George  A.  Wasson,  in  direct  contradiction  to 
his  letter  to  the  commissioners,  on  no  better  evidence  than  his  own  gene- 
ral statement  and  the  confidence  reposed  in  him  by  the  collector  simulta- 
neously with  his  removal  from  the  office  of  public  storekeeper  for  cause. 
In  addition  to  this  sum,  there  was  paid,  on  the  same  day,  to  Mr.  Wasson, 
the  sum  of  $154  84,  on  an  account  rendered  by  him  for  furniture  and 
supplies  of  articles  for  the  use  of  the  public  store,  during  the  same  period 
of  time.  Some  of  the  items  of  this  account  are  very  remarkable,  and 
the  whole  of  them  charged  at  the  most  exorbitant  prices.  In  less  than 
two  months,  it  appears  that  Mr.  Wasson  used,  in  the  public  store,  ten 
dozen  and  a  half  of  brooms,  at  the  cost  of  $27  25  ;  and  in  one  month  he 
charges  for  water  $8  50 ;  and  without  going  further  into  the  enumeration, 
as  the  account  will  speak  for  itself,  it  may  suffice  to  state,  in  general,  that 
the  whole  of  the  articles  charged  are  extravagant  in  the  extreme,  if  not 
entirely  unnecessary  for  the  use  and  consumption  of  the  persons  employed 
about  the  public  store. 

Similar  accounts  to  this,  it  is  in  evidence,  were  rendered  and  paid  every 
month  in  the  year,  although,  with  ordinary  care,  many  of  the  articles  might 
be  preserved  fit  for  use  one  or  two  years  before  it  would  become  neces- 
sary to  renew  them.  Besides  these  sums,  there  was  paid  by  Mr.  Curtis 
the  sum  of  hlHO  15  for  cartage  and  labor,  in  the  six  days  following  the  28th 
of  May,  in  which  is  included  the  sum  of  $290  for  labor  performed  while 
Mr.  Wasson  remained  in  office,  making  an  aggregate  expenditure  of 
$5,597  95  for  cartage  and  labor,  and  supplies  to  the  public  store,  in  less 
than  two  months,  equal  to  the  annual  sum  of  $33,5S7  70.  This  sum  ex- 
ceeds the  average  expenditure  per  annum  under  Mr.  Hoyt  by  $2,144  06. 
Of  course  there  was,  at  the  date  of  these  payments,  no  reform,  either  in 
the  manner  of  rendering  the  accounts  of  the  storekeeper  or  of  the  amount 
paid  to  him  on  this  branch  of  expenditure  at  the  custom-house.  Since 
the  removal  of  Wasson,  and  the  appointment  of  Alexander  Edgar  as  his 
successor,  a  new  arrangement  of  the  manner  ol  keeping  the  accounts  of 
cartage  and  labor,  and  the  vouchers  required  at  the  auditor's  office  to  pass 
them,  was  adopted,  the  result  of  which  has  been  a  considerable  reduction 
in  these  expenses,  especially  in  relation  to  cartage,  which  will  be  seen  in 
the  following  comparative  statements,  taking  one  quarter  of  three  succes- 
sive years  as  a  specimen  of  the  result  of  each  year. 

In  the  third  quarter  of  the  year  1839,  the  number  of  packages  ordered 
to  the  public  store  in  Nassau  street  for  examination  and  appraisement 
was  23,023,  the  cartage  and  labor  on  which  was  $11,573  73,  being  a  frac- 
tion under  50  cents  per  package. 

In  the  same  quarter  of  the  year  1S40,  the  number  of  packages  ordered 


144 


ltep.  No.  669. 


to  the  public  store  for  examination  and  appraisement  was  11,551,  being 
one-half  the  number  of  the  same  quarter  of  the  preceding  year. 

The  cartage  and  labor  during  this  quarter  of  the  year  1840  amounted  to 
$7,7S4  96,  being  67  cents  per  package. 

In  the  same  quarter  of  the  year  1841  the  number  of  packages  ordered 
to  the  public  store  for  examination  and  appraisement  was  16,911. 

The  cartage  and  labor  on  these  packages  amounted  to  $7,501  27,  being 
44  cents  per  package. 

Thus  showing  a  reduction  on  the  expenses  of  each  package,  as  compared 
with  the  year  1839, of  6  cents  per  package;  and,  as  compared  with  the  year 
1S40,  the  reduction  is  equal  to  23  cents  per  package;  making  a  difference 
of  expense  between  the  years  1839  and  1S41  of  12  per  cent.,  and  between 
the  latter  year  and  1840  of  33§  per  cent.,  in  favor  of  the  system  carried  into 
effect  since  the  removal  of  Wasson,  and  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Edgar  as 
principal  storekeeper ;  which  may  be  estimated  in  an  average  year  of  im- 
portations, if  there  be  no  relaxation  in  its  execution,  at  a  sum  not  far  short 
of  $10,000  per  annum. 

The  bills  of  stationery  furnished  to  the  commissioners  by  Mr.  Curtis  will 
show  to  what  extent  that  branch  of  expenditure  at  the  custom-house  has 
been  reformed  or  modified.  This  subject  has  already  been  noticed,  and  a 
comparative  view  taken,  in  tabular  statements,  of  the  prices  paid  for  books, 
stationery,  and  printing,  under  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  those  paid  by  Mr.  Curtis, 
since  he  came  into  office.  These  tabular  statements  are  drawn  from  vouchers 
called  for  by  the  board,  and  supplied  by  the  auditor  comprising  both  periods, 
down  to  the  close  of  the  investigations  of  the  board,  in  December,  1S41.  It 
will  be  seen,  by  reference  to  them,  what  the  prices  were  of  the  various 
articles  at  the  custom-house,  compared  with  the  selling  prices  of  the  same 
articles  in  the  New  York  market.  There  is  but  a  shade  of  difference  be- 
tween the  purchases  made  by  Mr.  Hoyt  and  those  made  by  Mr.  Curtis, 
each  being  over  100  per  cent.,  on  an  average,  above  the  price  at  which  the 
custom-house  could  have  been  supplied  by  wholesale  dealers  in  the  city  of 
New  York. 

Since  the  first  tabular  statements  were  made  out,  the  commissioners 
called  on  the  collector  for  the  several  descriptions  of  books  purchased  for 
the  use  of  the  custom-house,  or  any  department  thereof,  and  the  prices  paid 
for  the  same.  The  books  sent  by  the  collector  under  this  call  furnish 
several  classes,  in  addition  to  those  previously  noticed,  which  may  be  found 
in  the  following  comparative  prices  of  books  furnished  to  the  custom-house 
by  T.  &  J.  Waite,  since  the  appointment  of  Edward  Curtis  as  collector,, 
and  the  selling  prices  of  books  of  the  same  description  in  the  New  York 
market. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


145 


Item?. 

Prices  paid  by 
Ed.  Curtis. 

Market  prices 
inN.  York. 

— .  — 

1.  Protection  book,  6  quires,  folio  post  - 

#12 

50 

$6 

00 

9    TTnrnl rnpnt  book   2  nnirps        -             -  - 

5 

00 

2 

50 

3.  License  bonds,  6  quires,  foolscap,  half  bound 

on/-!  nrint^n                          _                 _  - 
cUlLl  pi  lULfyU        -                  -  - 

6 

00 

3 

00 

4.  Penal  bonds,  same  size  and  description 

fj 

00 

3 

00 

5.  Lists  of  crews,  foolscap  size,  half  bound  and 

printed  - 

7 

00 

3 

00 

6.  Enrolments,  5  quires,  half  bound  and  printed 

on  both  sides  - 

6 

00 

3 

00 

7.  District  bonds,  5  quires,  printed  on  both  sides, 
full  bound  in  sheep,  and  double  back  - 

12 

00 

6 

00 

David  Felt,  a  wholesale  dealer  in  stationery,  who  had  been  examined  by 
the  commissioners  concerning  the  prices  of  books,  printing,  and  stationery 
generally,  in  the  Nuw  York  market,  having  before  him  samples  of  the  ar- 
ticles purchased  during  the  term  of  office  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  and  on  whose 
evidence  all  the  tables  have  been  made  up,  was  particularly  referred  to  by  Mr. 
Curtis  to  affix  prices  to  similar  samples  of  books  and  stationery  purchased 
by  him.    In  his  letter  of  the  25th  of  November,  lS41,he  expresses  his 
wish  to  examine  two  or  three  other  witnesses  respecting  his  bills  of  sta- 
tionery and  printing.    He  gives  the  names  of  David  Felt,  A.  S.  Gould,  and 
William  Bowne,  as  the  persons  he  desired  to  examine,  and  says  of  ihem, 
that  they  are  responsible  men  and  competent  judges,  and  therefore  requests 
them  to  examine  his  accounts  and  samples,  and  give  their  opinion  upon  the 
subject.    Gould  had  been  previously  examined  as  to  the  prices  of  printing 
which  he  executed  (or  the  custom-house  during  the  term  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  and 
which  he  continued  to  execute,  in  the  name  of  T.  &  J.  Waiter  under  Mr. 
Curtis.    His  bills,  paid  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  were  among  the  most  extravagant  of 
any  that  have  been  rendered  to  the  commissioners;  and  those  paid  by  Mr. 
Curtis,  in  the  name  of  the  Messrs.  Waite,  are  equally  extravagant,  and  in 
some  cases  more  so.     He  was,  of  course,  interested  in  keeping  up  these 
prices  to  the  highest  point.  The  same  may  be  said  of  William  Bowne,  who 
is  one  of  the  stationers  selected  to  supply  the  custom-house  and  some  of  its 
departments.  Mr.  Felt  had  no  connexion  whatever  with  the  custom-house, 
and  might,  therefore,  be  deemed  impartial.    His  judgment  and  long  expe- 
rience in  this  branch  of  business  entitle  him  to  full  credit,  and,  being  one 
of  the  selected  witnesses  referred  to  by  Mr.  Curtis,  he  was  re-examined ; 
and  the  result,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  books,  has  been  given  in  the  above 
table.  He  fixes  the  prices  paid  by  Mr.  Curtis,  for  the  classes  of  books  enu- 
merated, at  100  per  cent,  higher  than  the  market  price  at  which  they  might 
have  been  purchased  in  New  York.  It  appears  that,  immediately  after  Mr. 
Curtis  came  into  office,  he  gave  the  principal  supply  of  printing  and  sta- 
tionery for  the  custom-house  to  T.  &  J.  Waite,  near  relatives  of  his,  who 
were  journeymen  printers,  having  no  printing  establishment  of  their  own 
in  the  city  of  New  York ;  nor  were  they  in  any  manner  whatever  con- 
cerned in  the  purchase  and  sale  of  stationery.    Their  bills,  which  are  ap- 
10 


146 


Rep.  No.  669. 


pended  to  this  report,  were  in  all  respects  equal,  and,  in  some  particulars 
more  extravagant  than  bills  for  similar  articles  or  printing  paid  under  Mr 
Hoyt,  which  have  heretofore  been  fully  commented  on.    Mr.  Gould  testi-i, 
iies,  concerning  these  young  men,  as  follows  :  "  The  persons  now  employed' 
to  do  the  printing  use  my  materials,  and  I  get  a  compensation  for  the  use 
of  the  materials.    The  printers  for  the  custom-house,  in  part,  are  Thomas 
G.  Waite  and  Joseph  Waite  ;  my  journeymen  are  sometimes  employed  in 
doing  the  printing,  and  are  paid  for  it  at  journeymen's  wages.  Mr. 
Thomas  G.  and  Joseph  Waite  are  practical  printers,  but  have  no  office  or 
printing  materials  of  their  own,  and  therefore  use  mine,  as  above  stated. 
I  do  not  know  why  they  are  so  employed. "    Why  Mr.  Curtis  gave  the 
printing  of  the  custom-house  to  these  two  journeymen  printers,  without 
materials  to  execute  the  work,  instead  of  making  his  contracts  with  well- 
established  printers,  of  whom  there  were  many  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
requires  explanations  which  have  not  been  given  ;  and  his  motives  must, 
therefore,  be  left  to  inference  drawn  from  the  fact  that  the  persons  em- 
ployed were  his  near  relatives.    They  had  no  means  of  their  own  to  sup- 
ply stationery  to  the  custom-house,  and  yet  they  made  these  supplies  at 
their  own  extravagant  rates,  while  it  is  evident  that  they  must  have  ob-. 
tained  the  articles  from  some  wholesale  establishment,  at  rates  far  below . 
those  charged  to  the  custom-house.   The  bills  were  submitted  to  Mr.  Felt, 
and  were  by  him  estimated  at  more  than  100  per  cent,  above  the  selling, 
prices  in  New  York.    A  few  examples  will  serve  to  show  the  general 
character  of  these  bills.    In  the  supply  of  stationery  to  the  Brooklyn  store, 
the  bill  rendered  charges  the  following  prices: 

For  foolscap  paper,  per  ream       -  -  -  «  -    $7  00 

For  letter  paper,  per  ream  -  -  -  -  7  00  ] 

For  steel  pens,  per  gross    -  -  -  -  -  -10  00 

For  one  blank  leger         -  -  -  -  -  -    12  00 

And  all  the  other  items  at  similar  rates  •  these  rates  are  25  per  cent,  above 
the  usual  prices  paid  by  Mr.  Hoyt. 

The  following  bill,  rendered  at  the  custom-house,  and  paid  by  the  col- 
lector, is  inserted  at  large,  as  a  fair  specimen  of  the  charges  made  by  T.  G. 
&  J.  Waite,  for  printing,  blank  books,  and  binding  : 

United  States,  per  E.  Curtis,  Esq.,  Collector,  to  J.      T.  G.  Waite,  Dr. 


Date. 

June  4, 

1841  - 

June  4, 

1841  - 

June  4, 

1S41  - 

June  4, 

1841  - 

June  14, 

1S41  - 

June  15, 

1S41  - 

June  18, 

1841  - 

June  26, 

1841  - 

June  30, 

1841  - 

Articles. 


To  printing  a  ream  of  fine  letter  circular 

To  printing  2,000  Treasury  note  checks 

To  printing  one  ream  of  oaths,  (blank) 

To  binding  book  of  certificates 

To  printing  three  reams  oaths 

To  printing  and  binding  six  full-bound  bond 
books,  at  $12  each  - 

To  printing  and  double  ruling  six  reams  of 
manifests,  (half  and  whole  sheets) 

To  printing  and  binding  six  Treasury  note  re- 
ceipt books  - 

To  printing  and  binding  two  folio  post  receipt 
books  - 


Amount. 


$15  00 
12  00 
12  00 
12  00 
38  00 

72  00 

96  00 

36  00 

30  00 
$323  00 


Rep.  No.  669.  147 

Custom-House,  New  York,  July  2,  1841. 
Received  from  Edward  Curtis,  Esq.,  collector  of  the  customs,  three  hun- 
dred and  twenty-three  dollars,  and  signed  duplicate  receipts. 

J.  &  T.  G.  WAITE. 

It  does  not  appear,  from  any  thing  in  the  above  bill,  or  others  of  a  similar 
character  which  have  been  rendered  by  the  same  persons,  that  the  paper 
on  which  the  printing  of  blanks  was  executed,  or  of  which  the  printed 
blank  books  were  composed,  was  supplied  by  them,  there  being  no  item 
for  paper.  The  conclusion  therefore  is,  that  the  materials  were  furnished 
by  the  custom-house,  and  that  the  bills  were  made  out  for  labor  only.  If 
this  inference  be  correct,  it  raises  these  bills  to  a  height  beyond  any  thing 
which  has  come  under  the  notice  of  the  commissioners.  Another  class  of 
.bills  rendered  by  Henry  Austice  are,  in  some  respects,  rather  below  the 
standard  of  bills  paid  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  but,  in  general,  the  prices  for  the  same 
.articles  correspond  within  a  fraction.  The  article  of  steel  pens  is  usually 
!  charged  ten  per  centum  higher  in  the  bills  paid  by  Mr.  Curtis  than  those 
•  paid  by  Mr.  Hoyt.  Commercial  sand,  the  market  price  of  which  is  stated 
by  Mr!  Felt  to  be  fifty  cents  per  bushel,  which  he  informed  the  commis- 
'  sioners  would  give  a  profit  to  the  merchant  of  200  per  centum,  was  paid 
for  by  Mr.  Hoyt  at  the  rate  of  $12  per  bushel.  This  article  has  been  re- 
dued  by  Mr.  Curtis  to  $S  per  bushel,  or  25  cents  per  quart.  This  is  a 
greater  reduction  than  can  be  found  in  any  other  article  supplied  to  the 
custom-house.  A  concise  narrative  of  the  correspondence  between  Mr. 
•Curtis  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  relating  to  expenditures  incurred 
hy  him  for  books,  stationery,  and  printing,  for  the  first  eight  months  after 
iiis  appointment  to  the  office  of  collector,  is  deemed  necessary,  in  connexion 
with  the  bills  actually  rendered  and  paid  by  him  during  that  period,  to  ex- 
hibit in  a  clear  light  the  various  and  conflicting  representations  which  he 
made  to  the  Department,  from  time  to  time,  on  this  subject.  In  the  last 
quarter  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  term  of  office,  including  the  mtmth  of  March,  1841, 
there  was  expended  in  stationery  alone  the  sum  of  $8,721  69,  which,  had 
it  been  economically  invested,  would  have  supplied  the  custom-house 
abundantly  for  at  least  one  year.  Mr.  Curtis  came  into  office  on  the  22d 
day  of  March,  finding  this  large  amount  ot  stationery  on  hand,  subject  to 
his  orders.  The  first  quarter  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  term  of  office,  commencing  on 
the  1st  day  of  April,  1S38,  being  the  second  quarter  of  that  year,  his  sta- 
tionery bills,  including  appraisers,  storekeeper,  and  inspectors,  amounted 
to  $2,04S  31.  The  same  same  quarter  of  the  year  1839,  these  bills 
amounted  to  $3,111  48.  And  in  the  same  quarter  of  the  succeeding  year 
to  the  sum  of  $4,022  85. 

As  above  stated,  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  year  1841,  being  the  last  of 
Mr.  Hoyt's  term,  this  branch  of  expenditure  reached  the  enormous  sum  of 
§8,721  69,  the  benefit  of  which  accrued  to  Mr.  Curtis,  as  he  came  into 
office  before  the  end  of  that  quarter.  The  stationery  bills  of  Mr.  Curtis 
for  the  second  quarter  of  the  year  1S41,  including  appraisers,  storekeeper, 
and  inspectors,  as  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Hoyt  in  the  second  quarter  of  the 
year  183S,  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $2,221  21,  being  $1S1  90  greater 
than  the  expenditure  of  Mr.  Hoyt  in  the  first  quarter  of  his  term  of  office, 
notwithstanding  the  supply  already  in  the  custom-house,  before  referred 
to.  The.  first  letter  addressed  by  Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector,  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  on  the  subject  of  stationery,  of  which  the  commissioners 


148 


Sep.  No.  669. 


have  any  knowledge,  bears  date  October  26,  1S41.  In  this  letter  Mr.  Cur- 
tis informed  the  Secretary  that,  in  the  absence  of  instructions  from  the 
Department,  he  had  continued  to  supply  the  custom-house,  as  heretofore, 
at  private  purchase,  and  adds  :  "  I  wish  to  observe,  however,  that  the  bills 
of  stationery  and  printing,  since  I  have  been  in  office,  show  a  very  great 
diminution  of  expense  for  these  items ;  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  my  or- 
ders have  been  supplied  as  cheaply  as  they  could  have  been  after  public 
proposals."  It  is  certain  that  the  diminution  of  expense  which  Mr.  Curtis 
alleges  would  appear  in  his  bills  of  stationery  and  printing  is  not  to  be 
found  in  any  such  bill  furnished  by  him,  or  the  auditor  under  his  orders,, 
to  the  commissioners.  These  bills  have  been  before  commented  on,  and 
will  speak  for  themselves.  Mr.  Curtis  says  he  has  no  doubt  that  his  orders 
have  been  supplied  as  cheaply  as  they  could  have  been  after  public  propo- 
sals. To  test  the  accuracy  of  this  conclusion,  at  which  the  collector  seems 
to  have  arrived,  it  will  only  be  necessary  to  compare  his  bills  with  the  tes- 
timony of  David  Felt,  a  wholesale  stationer  of  long  standing,  who  was 
particularly  called  on,  by  the  desire  of  Mr.  Curtis,  to  examine  the  prices 
paid  by  him  for  books,  pens,  paper,  printing,  and  other  articles  of  station- 
ery, and  compare  them  with  the  selling  prices  in  New  York.  Mr.  Curtis 
was  supplied  with  steel  pens  by  Messrs.  T.  G.  &  J.  Waite,  at  $10  per  gross. 
Mr.  Felt  fixes  the  market  price  of  that  article  at  $1  50  per  gross,  for  that, 
class  of  pens  used  by  clerks  in  mercantile  houses  and  public  offices.  Can 
Mr.  Curtis  say  that  these  pens  were  supplied  to  him  as  cheaply  as  they 
could  have  been  obtained  u  after  public  proposals?"  By  referring  to  the 
deposition  of  Mr.  Felt,  it  will  be  seen  that  every  article  of  stationery  and 
books  included  in  the  bills  paid  by  Mr.  Curtis  is  charged  at  least  one 
hundred  per  cent,  above  the  selling  prices  in  New  York ;  and  the  same 
remark  is  applicable  to  printed  blanks  and  other  printing  done  for  the  cus- 
tom-house. Mr.  Ftflt  further  states,  in  a  supplemental  deposition,  after 
enumerating  the  prices  of  every  article  of  stationery,  books,  and  printings 
that  he  would  have  supplied  the  custom-house,  in  large  or  small  quantities, 
as  ordered,  with  the  whole  of  these  articles,  at  the  prices  contained  in  his 
deposition.  Is  it  possible  that  Mr.  Curtis  could  have  been  so  entirely  ig- 
norant of  these  prices,  and  of  the  terms  on  which  he  might  have  supplied 
the  custom-house,  as  to  allow  himself  to  say  that  it  would  appear,  by  his 
bills,  that  he  had  obtained  them  as  cheaply  from  hucksters,  or  retail  deal- 
ers, at  private  purchase,  as  they  could  have  been  had  after  public  propo- 
sals ?  He  has  made  this  declaration  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in 
an  official  letter,  in  the  face  of  the  most  enormous  bills  rendered  by  him 
to  the  commissioners,  and  of  the  evidence  of  Mr.  Felt,  his  own  witness, 
who  states,  under  oath,  that  he  would  have  supplied  the  custom-house 
with  the  same  articles  at  prices  at  least  one-half  beiow  those  paid  by  Mr- 
Curtis. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  reply  to  this  letter,  advises  the  collect- 
or to  change  the  system,  and  adopt  the  plan  of  public  proposals,  and  of 
closing  the  contract  for  the  supply  of  the  custom-house  with  the  lowest  bid- 
der; and  adds  that,  until  better  advised  in  the  matter,  he  should  leave  the 
responsibility  of  the  coarse  to  be  taken  to  the  collector.  Mr.  Curtis,  in  an 
official  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  bearing  date  November  1, 
1841,  concurs  in  the  propriety  of  making  public  proposals  for  writing  pa- 
per, ink,  and  pens ;  but,  as  to  all  other  items,  says  :  "  1  do  not  see  any  other 
way  but  to  employ  a  regular  stationer  and  binder,  taking  care  that  his- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


149 


-charges  are  reasonable,  and  not  exceeding  those  which  he  makes  to  indi- 
vidual merchants  who  deal  with  him  in  the  purchase  oflike  articles." 

It  may  be  somewhat  strange  that  Mr.  Curtis  could  not  see  that  any  thing 
could  be  gained  by  purchasing  books,  bound  or  unbound,  of  a  wholesale 
dealer,  when,  according  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Felt,  after  strict  examina- 
tion of  the  specimens  sent  by  Mr.  Curtis  to  the  commissioners,  he  would  have 
furnished  similar  books  at  one-half  the  price  paid  by  the  collector  at  what 
he  calls  "  private  purchase."  In  the  same  letter  Mr  Curtis  says  :  "  I  ex- 
tract from  a  bill  made  by  a  stationer  whom  I  have  employed  certain  items, 
that  you  may  see  the  nature  of  the  expenditures."  The  bill  referred  to 
bears  date  June  1,  1841,  and  was  rendered  by  Henry  Austice.  An  inspec- 
tion of  the  bill,  compared  with  the  extract  communicated  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  will  show  that  fourteen  principal  items,  being  the  most 
extravagant  charges  contained  it,  are  omitted,  and  those  items  only  se- 
lected which  would  bear  a  favorable  comparison  with  the  prices  paid  for 
similar  articles  by  Mr.  Hoyt.  It  also  appears  that  the  extract  is  not  con- 
fined to  one  bill,  but  two  items  are  taken  from  a  bill  rendered  by  the  same 
stationer,  commencing  on  the  30th  of  March  and  ending  on  the  25th  of 
May,  1841,  while  the  whole  of  the  residue  of  that  bill,  amounting  to  $386  13, 
is  omitted.  At  the  foot  of  this  extract  the  collector  proceeds  to  state:  "  The 
foregoing  exhibits  the  current  charges  and  items.  Pens,  ink,  and  paper, 
might  no  doubt  be  procured  cheaper,  though  not  much  cheaper,  by  whole- 
sale purchase ;  and  that  plan  I  propose  to  adopt  hereafter.  The  other 
items  seem  to  me  to  be  such  that  they  cannot  be  specified  beforehand,  and 
must  be  procured  on  such  reasonable  terms,  from  day  to  day,  as  are  prac- 
ticable." Whether  this  partial  reform  in  the  purchase  of  stationery  prom- 
ised by  the  collector  has  been  carried  into  effect  and  operation  is  not  known; 
but  it  is  certain  that  the  old  system  of  purchases  was  continued  down  to 
the  month  of  November  last.  The  items  extracted  from  the  bills  of  Henry 
Austice  were  professedly  designed  to  impart  information  to  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  in  relation  to  prices  generally  paid  by  the  collector  for  sta- 
tionery ;  but  it  is  certainly  better  calculated  to  mislead  than  to  enlighten 
the  Secretary  on  this  subject.  It  may  be  asked  why  the  collecter  did  not 
append  to  his  letter  of  November  1st  a  full  and  fair  copy  of  the  bills  of 
Henry  Austice?  Why  did  he  pick  and  cull  from  these  bills  such  items 
as  would  indicate  a  renewed  economy  in  that  branch  of  expenditure  ? 
Why  were  the  bills  of  T.  G.  &  J.  Waite,  which  have  been  before  no- 
ticed for  their  enormous  extravagance,  wholly  omitted  in  this  expose  of 
the  collector,  expressly  made  to  quiet  the  mind  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  and  assure  him  of  reforms  made  and  contemplated,  in  reducing 
the  quantity  and  cost  of  stationery  ordered  by  him  for  the  use  of  the  cus- 
tom-house ?  Are  such  equivocations,  not  to  say  false  representations,  offi- 
cially made  by  the  collector  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  calculated  to 
inspire  confidence  in  the  fidelity  of  a  high  officer  of  the  Government,  in- 
trusted with  the  collection  and  safe  keeping  of  millions  of  the  public  money  ? 
The  collector  may  be  enabled  to  satisfy  the  Executive  on  these  points :  but, 
without  explanation,  they  ought  assuredly  to  call  for  the  exercise  of  Execu- 
tive authority  to  rebuke  them.  In  the  same  letter  the  collector  informs  tUe 
Secretary  that  the  "  aggregate  for  the  bills  of  stationery  and  books  during 
seven  months  is  about  fifteen  hundred  dollars,  and  a  considerable  quantity 
js  now  on  hand." 


150 


Rep.  No.  669. 


The  following  addition  is  made  to  the  copy  of  this  letter  sent  to  the  com- 
missioners, which  is  not  in  the  original  at  the  Treasury  Department :  "  Refer- 
ence is  here  made  to  the  bills  of  stationery  for  the  offices  of  collector,  audi- 
tor, cashier,  storekeeper,  exclusive  of  surveyors  and  appraisers*  bills."' 
Here,  again,  is  an  attempt  made  by  the  collector  to  avoid  the  force  of  his 
official  statement  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  limiting  the  expendi- 
tures for  books  and  stationery  at  the  custom-house,  without  reserve,  to  the 
small  sum  of  fifteen  hundred  dollars,  by  an  addition  to  the  copy  of  his  let- 
ter, which  is  not  in  the  original,  excluding  from  this  estimate  the  survey- 
ors and  appraisers'  bills.  Could  the  Secretary  have  inferred  these  excep- 
tions from  any  thing  contained  in  the  official  letter  of  the  collector  on  file 
in  the  Department  ?  Certainly  not.  It  was  an  afterthought,  evidently 
designed  to  cover  the  inaccurate  statement  of  his  expenditures  previously 
made  to  the  Treasury  Department.  But,  admitting  the  exceptions  interpo- 
lated by  the  collector  to  justify  himself,  it  still  appears,  by  the  official  re- 
turn of  the  auditor,  that,  on  the  30th  of  September,  1S41,  only  six  months 
after  the  collector  came  into  office,  the  bills  for  his  office,  exclusive  of  the 
surveyor  and  appraisers,  amounted  to  the  sum  of  $2,591  10;  and  yet  he- 
states  these  bills  at  Si, 500  for  seven  months,  and  alleges  that  he  had  a 
considerable  quantity  of  the  articles  purchased  with  this  sum  on  hand. 
But  on  the  25th  of  November,  1S41,  the  collector  presented  another  ver- 
sion of  these  accounts ;  and,  after  some  preliminary  comments,  states  i 
"The  commissioners  will  observe  that  the  statement  shows  the  cost  of  sta- 
tionery, books,  printing,  &c,  to  amount  to  £4.580  50  for  eight  months,  and 
that  a  great  portion  of  this  is  upon  the  purchases  made  by  the  surveyors 
and  appraisers."  On  this  estimate  for  eight  months,  the  collector  is  of 
opinion  that  $6.S70  SS  would  be  sufficient  for  the  annual  supply  of  all  the 
departments  of  the  custom  house  with  books,  stationery,  and  printing. 

The  various  and  conflicting  statements  of  the  collector,  in  his  communi- 
cations to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasuiy  and  his  reports  to  the  commis- 
sioners, require  particular  notice. 

1st.  For  seven  months,  he  states  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury that  the  aggregate  of  his  bills  for  stationery  and  books 
was  -  -  -  -  -  -  $1,500  00 

2d.  On  the  16th  of  November,  the  auditor's  report,  sent  to  the 
commissioners  by  the  collector,  places  that  expenditure,  for 
the  collector's  office,  for  six  months,  at  2,591  10 

3d.  The  whole  expenditure,  including  surveyor  and  apprais- 
ers, in  the  same  report,  is  stated  to  be  -  -  -     3,640  96 

4th.  On  the  25th  of  November  the  collector  reported  his  expen- 
ditures for  stationery  and  printing,  including  a  part  only  of 
the  bills  made  by  the  surveyor  and  appraisers,  at    -  -     4,5S0  50 

The  discrepancy  of  these  statements,  as  well  as  the  manner  in  which 
they  have  been  made,  must  strike  every  one  as  exhibiting,  in  a  very  pecu- 
liar manner,  the  want  either  of  accuracy  or  candor  on  the  part  of  the  col- 
lector who  made  them.  But  it  is  still  more  remarkable  that,  in  all  these 
statements  and  estimates  of  expenditure,  the  collector  cautiously  omits  to 
take  any  notice  whatever  of  the  stationery  purchased  in  the  first  quarter 
of  the  year  1S41,  amounting,  as  before  stated,  to  $S,721  69,  nearly  the 
whole  of  which  should  have  been  on  hand  when  lie  entered  on  the  dis- 
charge of  his  duties  as  collector.    This  large  sum,  added  to  his  bills  for  the 


Rep.  No.  699. 


151 


first  eight  months  after  he  came  into  office,  would  swell  the  amount  of  his 
annual  expenditures,  for  books,  stationery,  and  printing,  to  more  than  dou- 
ble the  sum  at  which  he  estimates  it  in  his  letter  to  the  commissioners,  be- 
ing only  $6,S70  88  per  annum. 

It  is  believed,  on  the  whole  view  of  this  subject,  that  but  very  little,  if 
any,  reduction  has  been  made  by  the  present  collector  in  this  branch  of 
expenditure,  as  it  existed  while  Mr.  Hoyt  remained  in  office. 

The  receipts  and  disbursements  at  the  New  York  custom-house  for  the 
three  last  quarters  of  the  year  1S41  are  better  known  at  the  Treasury  De- 
partment than  to  the  commissioners,  who,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances 
attending  the  execution  of  their  commission,  were  unable  to  enter  minutely 
into  their  investigation.  It  appears,  however,  on  this  subject,  that  on  the 
4th  day  of  November,  1841,  the  collector,  without  having  been  called  on 
by  the  commissioners  for  a  statement  of  his  cash  transactions,  thought  fit 
to  create  a  commission  (under  what  authority  is  unknown)  to  examine  the 
cashier  and  auditor's  books,  and  report  to  him  the  state  of  his  accounts,  as 
drawn  from  these  officers.  These  commissioners  were  required,  in  their 
letter  of  appointment,  to  perform  the  following  duties: 

"  1.  I  wish  an  examination  of  the  books  of  the  cashier,  by  which  the 
amount  of  cash  received  by  him  since  the  23d  of  March,  1S11,  may  be  as- 
certained, and  a  condensed  statement  of  the  sources  from  which  it  was 
derived. 

"2.  The  amount  of  cash  paid  over  to  me,  by  the  cashier,  as  collector. 

"  3.  The  amount  of  all  other  payments  of  money  by  the  cashier,  and  a 
condensed  statement  of  the  nature  of  those  payments. 

"4.  An  examination  of  the  bank  account  of  the  collector,  and  of  his  re- 
ceipts for  payments  to  the  Treasury.  You  will  bring  the  examination 
down  to  the  6th  of  November,  1S41.  The  cashier  and  auditor  will  render 
you  any  assistance  you  may  require  in  this  proceeding." 

This  anomalous  commission  was  composed  of  two  subordinate  officers 
in  the  collector's  office,  who  held  their  offices  at  the  will  of  the  collector ; 
they  were  selected  by  him,  performed  their  duties  under  his  supervision, 
and  reported  the  result  of  their  examinations  to  him,  for  his  approval.  The 
novelty  of  this  proceeding — it  being,  as  is  believed,  without  law  or  prece- 
dent to  sustain  it — is  well  calculated  to  excite  doubts  of  the  integrity  and 
impartiality  of  the  persons  designated  by  the  collector  to  report  to  him  a 
statement  of  his  own  accounts,  which  he  is  bound  to  render  quarterly  at 
the  Treasury  Department.  Under  whose  authority  did  Mr.  Curtis  commit 
this  trust,  in  the  result  of  which  he  alone  is  interested,  to  two  of  his  own 
dependants,  whose  continuance  in  office  might,  and  in  all  probability  did, 
depend  on  a  favorable  report  of  the  conduct  of  their  superior,  in  his  cash 
transactions,  as  collector?  Suppose  these  officers  had  reported  Mr.  Curtis 
as  a  public  defaulter,  and  then  sent  the  report  to  him  for  his  approval,  is  it 
to  be  presumed  the  commissioners  would  have  heard  any  thing  of  it  ?  In 
such  an  event,  what  would  have  become  of  the  officers  ?  The  answer  is 
inevitable  :  they  would  have  been  removed  from  office  by  their  offended 
master.  It  is  unnecessary,  therefore,  to  impute  any  want  of  moral  honesty 
to  these  subordinates  of  Mr.  Curtis,  as  their  position  in  the  custom-house, 
and  the  manner  of  their  appointment,  subjects  their  report  to  suspicions  well 
calculated  to  impair  confidence  in  its  verity.  The  letter  of  these  commis- 
sioners or  officers,  to  the  collector,  bears  date  November  12,  1841,  on  which 
day  their  investigations  were  brought  to  a  close,  and  the  general  statement 


152 


Rep.  No.  669. 


made  by  them  handed  over  to  the  collector.  They  pay  a  compliment  to  the 
cashier,  which,  as  it  may  be  of  some  value  to  him,  is  inserted  in  their  own 
words:  "  We  avail  ourselves  of  this  occasion  to  testify  to  the  urbanity  and 
readiness  to  afford  every  required  explanation  evinced  by  the  cashier,  as 
well  as  to  the  admirable  system  displayed  in  the  books  of  his  department. " 

Thus  has  Mr.  Curtis  resorted  to  the  novel  and  singular  expedient  of  put- 
ting himself  on  trial  before  judges  of  his  own  choosing,  who  accord  to  him 
all  that  he  desired — a  general  verdict  of  acquittal  from  his  cash  responsi- 
bilities. The  collector,  in  return,  expresses  his  entire  concurrence  in  their 
report,  and  they,  in  their  high  character  of  commissioners,  commend  the 
urbanity,  and  readiness  to  afford  information  to  them,  evinced  by  the  cash- 
ier, as  well  as  his  admirable  system  displayed  in  the  books  of  his  depart- 
ment ;  and  in  this  amicable  manner  the  business  is  closed,  to  the  mutual 
delight  and  satisfaction  of  all  parties  concerned.  This  is  indeed  making  the 
most  of  a  combination  of  the  official  power  of  the  collector  with  the  pliant 
subserviency  of  his  subordinates,  and  may  serve  as  a  useful  example,  in 
like  cases,  to  his  successors  in  office. 

The  account  rendered  consists  of  general  items,  which  it  is  difficult  to 
understand  or  scrutinize  ;  and  therefore  no  opinion  can  be  offered  in  respect 
to  its  accuracy,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  these  items. 

It  seems  that  this  plan  of  liquidating  the  cash  transactions  of  the  collector 
was  determined  on  as  early  as  the  4th  of  November,  1S41,  that  it  was 
brought  to  a  conclusion  on  the  12th;  and  on  the  15th  a  resolution  was 
adopted,  at  the  instance  of  one  of  the  commissioners,  requesting  the  col- 
lector to  communicate  to  the  board  the  state  and  condition  of  his  cash  ac- 
count. To  this  resolution  the  collector  replied,  on  the  same  day,  by  trans- 
mitting the  account,  taken  as  hereinbefore  stated.  The  call  and  the  an- 
swer being  simultaneous  affords  strong  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  insti- 
gated by  the  collector  himself,  and  designed  to  cover  his  cash  account  from 
special  examination  and  animadversion. 

Mr.  Waters,  the  cashier,  on  his  examination  before  the  commissioners, 
states  a  balance  remaining  in  his  hands  of  $1,682  S3,  accruing  on  excesse 
of  cash  balances  paid  at  the  custom-house,  and  not  entered  on  his  cas 
book,  which  he  held  subject  to  the  order  of  Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector.  I 
is  worthy  of  remark,  that  this  sum,  so  held  by  the  cashier,  forms  no  part  o 
the  cash  account  made  up  for  the  use  of  the  collector,  and  by  him  sent  t 
the  commissioners.    WThat  disposition  has  been  made  of  this  sum,  if  any 
does  not  appear.    Under  Mr.  Hoyt  these  excesses  amounted  to  abou 
§101  per  month,  and  since  Mr.  Curtis  came  into  office  they  have  accumu 
lated  to  the  sum  of  §225  per  month.    The  receipts  from  this  source  prop 
erly  belong  to  the  Treasury,  and  ought  regularly  to  have  been  carried  t 
the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  at  the  end  of  each  quarter;  but  Mr.  Waters  tes 
tifies  that,  up  to  the  time  Mr.  Hoyt  left  the  office  of  collector,  he  paid  ove 
to  him  the  sum  of  $2,S42  91,  being  the  amount  remaining  in  his  hands  of 
these  balances,  which  Mr.  Hoyt  claimed  and  appropriated  to  his  own  use, 
and  for  which  he  has  not,  at  any  time,  accounted  to  the  Treasury.  Mr. 
Curtis  most  probably  retains  the  amount  in  the  hands  of  the  cashier,  under 
the  authority  of  the  example  of  his  predecessor  ;  but  there  can  be  no  found- 
ation for  such  claim  in  either  case.  Connected  with  the  disbursements  and 
cash  transactions  at  the  custom-house,  it  may  be  proper  to  notice  certain 
payments  made  to  discharged  measurers,  under  the  checks  of  the  auditor, 
beyond  the  fees  earned  by  them  up  to  the  time  of  their  removal.    It  ap- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


153 


pears  that,  between  the  20th  of  April  and  the  30th  of  Jane,  1S41,  Mr  Cur- 
tis dismissed  seventeen  measurers,  and  appointed  fifteen  others  to  succeed 
them,  leaving  the  number  in  commission  less,  by  two,  than  the  number  em- 
ployed by  Mr.  Hoyt.  The  following  table,  taken  from  the  report  of  the 
auditor,  will  show  the  dates  at  which  each  of  these  measurers  was  re- 
moved, the  sums  earned  by  each,  and  the  amount  paid  to  them,  respect- 
ively, at  the  custom-house  : 

Statement  of  amoun  t  of  fees  accrued  to  the  measurers  who  were  removed 
from  office  by  Edward  Curtis,  collector,  and  the  amount  paid  to  each. 


Names  of  measurers 


Date  of  removal. 


Amount  of 
fees. 


Amount  paid. 


John  Alwise 
Jacob  D.  Clute 
William  Dewell 
J.  W.  Forbes 
Edmund  Fitch 
W.  M.  Hitchcock  - 
William  Hogadowe  - 
Joseph  Hopkins 
George  W.  McPherson 
George  Nixon 
Lemuel  Pittman 
J.  W.  Richardson  - 
Henry  C.  S perry 
Alfred  G.  Stevens  - 
John  M.  Thome 
J.  B.  Vanderpool 
J.  M.  Vreeland 


May 

May 

May 

June 

May 

June 

May 

May 

April 

June 

May 

June 

May 

May 

May 

May 

June 


13,  1841 

24,  1841 

25,  1841 
3,  1841 

12,  1841 

12,  1841 

17,  1841 

26,  1841 

30,  1841 
10,  1841 

31,  1941 
7,  1841 

15,  1841 

17,  1841 

27,  1841 
19,  1841 
30,  1841 


§311  10 
419  06 
375  06 
434  03 
355  77 
487  48 
401  33 
285  97 

261  82 
365  59 
343  94 
449  52 

262  37 
537  85 
371  93 
407  81 
499  23 


6,569  86 


By  the  above  statement  it  will  appear  that  the  amount  paid  exceeds  the 
fees  earned  by  these  dismissed  measurers,  in  the  aggregate,  $3,732  is,  up 
to  the  dates  of  their  several  removals.  By  the  7th  section  of  the  act  of 
July,  1840,  by  which  the  act  of  July,  1S3S,  is  revived,  each  measurer  is 
entitled  to  an  annual  compensation  of  $1,500,  provided  the  fees  earned  by 
him  or  them  shall  amount  to  a  sum  sufficient  to  cover  that  maximum. 
The  fees  earned  by  the  removed  measurers  up  to  the  date  of  their  respect- 
ive removals  would  seem  to  constitute  the  extent  of  their  compensation, 
as  regulated  by  the  above-recited  act.  The  spirit  of  the  law,  as  well  as  its 
letter,  contemplates  payment  only  for  services  actually  rendered ;  and  if 
these  services  bring  into  the  public  Treasury  an  amount  sufficient  to  reach 
the  sum  of  $1,500  per  annum,  they  are  respectively  entitled  to  demand 
and  receive  that  sum,  or  in  the  ratio  of  it,  for  the  time  they  remained  in  the 
public  service.  The  overplus,  if  any,  arising  from  the  fees  of  office  earned 
by  the  measurers,  enures  to  the  benefit  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 
The  commissioners  were  informed  of  the  payments  made  at  the  custom- 
house to  the  dismissed  measurers  of  the  maximum  of  their  compensation 
from  the  1st  of  January,  1S41,  to  the  date  of  their  removal  from  office,  and, 
deeming  these  payments  to  be  in  violation  of  law,  they  passed  an  order 
calling  on  the  collector  for  full  information  on  this  subject.  In  reply  to 
this  order,  Mr.  Curtis  addressed  a  letter  to  the  commissioners,  bearing  date 


154 


Rep.  No.  669. 


November  8,  1S41,  covering  a  report  to  him,  made,  at  his  request,  by  Mr. 
Fleming,  the  auditor.  He  professes  to  have  had  no  knowledge  of  these 
payments  prior  to  the  16th  of  September,  on  which  day  he  was  informed 
of  it  by  Reuben  Ellis,  one  of  the  measurers  recently  appointed,  who,  it 
appears,  complained  of  the  injustice  thereby  done  to  the  newly  appointed 
measurers.  He  called  the  attention  of  the  auditor  to  this  fact,  and  re- 
quested that  officer  to  state  "  whether,  in  adjusting  and  paying  the  ac- 
counts of  the  removed  measurers,  he  had  consulted  or  advised  with  me 
upon  the  subject."  The  auditor  admits,  as  appears  by  the  preceding 
statement,  that  he  had  paid  to  these  dismissed  measurers  the  maximum  of 
their  legal  compensation  ;  and,  also,  that  they  had  earned  in  fees  less  than 
the  amount  paid  them,  by  $3,732  18,  but  justifies  the  payment  of  this 
overplus  on  the  ground  of  precedent.  He  says:  "  This  has  invariably 
been  the  case  for  several  years  past ;  and  in  no  instance,  since  the  under- 
signed has  been  auditor,  have  the  fees  fallen  short  of  that  sum.  On  a 
final  settlement  with  the  above  measurers,  they  were  on  this  ground  paid 
their  pro  rata  compensation  of  $1,500."  He  made  an  estimate  of  the 
probable  amount  of  fees  which  might  or  might  not  accrue  to  this  class  of 
officers  during  the  whole  of  the  year  1841,  and  brought  his  mind  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  would  at  least  be  equal  to  the  full  compensation  of  each 
measurer  during  the  year ;  and  then  proceeds  to  say :  "  It  matters  not 
whether  the  fees  fall  short  in  the  former  or  latter  part  of  the  year,  if  no 
deficiency  occurs  in  the  aggregate  for  the  whole  year.  Nor  is  it  material 
whether  changes  are  made  among  the  measurers,  as  the  office  is  looked 
to,  and  not  the  individuals,  and  each  person  is  entitled  to  his  pro  rata 
share  of  the  annual  compensation,  and  no  one  can  receive  more  than  such 
share,  whatever  may  be  the  date  of  his  appointment  to  office,  or  the 
amount  of  fees  that  had  accrued,  or  the  time  of  such  accruing."  It  is  be- 
lieved that  precisely  the  converse  of  this  reasoning  on  the  part  of  the  au- 
ditor would  be  the  true  interpretation  of  the  act  of  183S.  The  auditor, 
it  seems,  looked  to  the  office,  and  not  to  the  individual,  in  fixing  the 
amount  of  his  compensation  ;  whereas  the  law  expressly  refers  to  the  fees 
earned  by  the  individual  as  his  rate  of  compensation,  provided  they  should 
not  exceed  $1,500;  in  which  case  the  surplus  is  directed  to  be  paid  into 
the  Treasury.  He  refers  to  his  construction  of  the  act,  as  having  been 
uniformly  adopted  at  the  custom-house,  under  the  sanction  of  the  Treasury 
Department.  No  precedent  is  referred  to,  or  shown,  to  justify  this  as- 
sumption, and  no  sanction  of  the  Treasury  Department  of  any  such  princi- 
ple has  been  exhibited,  either  by  the  auditor  or  the  collector.  None  such 
was  in  evidence  before  the  board.  The  act  of  Congress  must  therefore 
govern  the  case,  the  plain  import  of  which  is  in  direct  opposition  to  the 
payments  made  by  the  auditor  to  these  dismissed  officers.  The  law  looks 
to  services  and  fees  incident  thereto,  while  the  auditor  looks  to  the  office, 
and  not  to  services,  which  he  wholly  disregards. 

If  this  rule  of  construction  should  be  adopted,  the  result  would  be  inev- 
itable, that  if  a  measurer  is  appointed  to  office  by  the  collector,  on  the  1st 
day  of  January,  and  remains  in  office  one  month,  earning  nothing,  his 
compensation  must  be  estimated  at  the  rate  of  $1,500  per  annum  so  long 
as  he  remained  in  office;  which  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  provision 
of  the  act  which  makes  his  compensation  dependent  on  his  earnings.  The 
principle  of  a  pro  rata  compensaiion — to  be  estimated  by  the  aggregate 
amount  of  fees  accruing  to  all  the  measurers  employed  at  the  custom- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


155 


house,  and  dividing  the  same  equally  among  this  class  of  officers,  so  as  to 
bring  the  salary  of  each  up  to  the  maximum,  although  one-third  or  one- 
half  of  them  may  not  have  earned  that  amount  of  fees — is  not  recognised 
by  law ;  and,  if  such  a  system  has  prevailed,  it  is  a  regulation  adopted  by 
i the  collector  without  the  authority  of  law.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  the 
sum  of  $3,732  18  has  been,  with  the  consent  of  Mr.  Curtis,  taken  out  of 
the  public  Treasury,  and  paid  to  seventeen  measurers  whom  he  had  dis- 
missed from  office . 

The  solicitude  of  Mr.  Curtis  to  acquit  himself  of  all  knowledge  or  par- 
ticipation in  these  payments  strongly  indicates  his  belief  that  they  were 
unauthorized;  for,  if  they  had  been  disbursements  made  in  the  ordinary 
course  of  business  at  the  custom-house,  it  assuredly  would  not  have  enter- 
ed into  his  mind  that  it  was  necessary  or  proper  to  attempt  to  exonerate 
himself  by  casting  the  responsibility  on  the  auditor,  for  whose  acts,  in 
all  respects,  the  collector  is  held  accountable  by  law.  The  auditor,  as  in 
duty  bound,  states  to  the  collector,  "that  in  no  instance  were  you  consulted 
by  me  in  regard  to  any  payments  made  to  these  officers."  But  this  dec- 
laration, intended  as  it  was  to  redeem  the  collector  from  responsibility  for 
:the  act,  can  avail  nothing,  as  he  was  fully  informed  of  the  proceeding  by 
Reuben  Ellis,  an  officer  of  his  own  appointment;  and  on  the  following 
day  he  states,  in  his  letter  to  the  commissioners,  "  I  made  inquiry  of  Mr. 
Fleming,  and  received  from  him  an  explanation  substantially  like  that 
which  now  accompanies  his  statement.  On  being  assured  by  the  auditor 
that  he  was  certain,  from  the  importations  already  made  this  year,  and 
from  the  experience  of  past  years,  that  the  aggregate  fees  of  the  measur- 
ers for  the  year  would  exceed  the  maximum  annual  compensation  allowed 
by  law  to  this  class  of  officers,  and  that,  the  course  he  had  adopted  was  in 
conformity  with  the  unquestioned  usage  of  the  department  in  many  former 
cases  of  outgoing  officers,  I  felt  no  further  anxiety  on  the  subject ;"  thus 
affixing  the  seal  of  his  approbation  to  the  unlawful  abstraction  of  the  sum 
overpaid  by  the  auditor  to  these  officers,  which  he  has  since  permitted  to 
remain  without  investigation  or  correction.  It  is  therefore  most  clearly  the 
act  of  the  collector;  for  which,  if  it  be  a  violation  of  law,  he  ought  to  be 
held  accountable.  There  is  no  reform  more  important,  or  more  imperi- 
ously called  for  at  the  New  York  custom-house,  than  the  expulsion  of 
unfaithful  and  corrupt  officers,  whose  conduct  cannot  bear  the  scrutiny  of 
rigid  investigation,  and  the  introduction  into  their  places  of  men  of  moral 
honesty  and  integrity,  who  merit  the  confidence  reposed  in  them.  Add  to 
this  proper  checks,  and  a  strict  accountability  at  the  Treasury  Department, 
and  the  Government  may  be  redeemed  from  the  odium  of  bribery,  corrup- 
tion, and  of  mercenary  encroachments  on  the  legitimate  rights  of  lawful 
commerce,  and  the  revenue  from  the  deterioration  produced  by  these 
causes.  If  the  exposition  hereinbefore  given  of  the  official  corps,  as  it  ex- 
isted under  Mr.  Hoyt,  furnishes  evidence  of  their  want  of  purity  and  integ- 
rity, these  defects  were  equally  applicable  to  Mr.  Curtis,  the  new  collector. 

The  same  persons  were  found  in  office  at  the  time  this  commission  was 
instituted,  and  the  same  duties  assigned  to  them  by  Mr.  Hoyt  were  con- 
tinued, both  in  form  and  substance,  by  his  successor.  The  few  removals 
which  had  been  made  by  Mr.  Curtis  were  confined  to  the  class  of  inspect- 
ors, and  of  these  a  very  limited  number  were  turned  out.  All  the  princi- 
pal officers  of  the  customs  remained  as  before.  The  changes  commenced 
with  Cairns  and  Wasson,  who  were  strongly  recommended  by  the  col- 


156 


Bep.  No.  669. 


lector  to  the  Treasury  Department,  for  honesty,  fidelity,  perseverance,  and 
ability,  in  the  previous  discharge  of  their  public  duties,  and  subsequently 
removed  by  him,  on  full  proof  that  they  had  no  just  claim  to  these  high 
qualities.  About* the  same  time,  and  while  the  commissioners  were  in 
session,  another  officer  of  the  customs  was  removed  by  the  collector,  under 
very  peculiar  circumstances,  which  it  may  be  proper  to  notice.  The  assist- 
ant cashier  had  been  called  before  the  commissioners,  as  a  witness,  to  give 
evidence  in  relation  to  certain  practices  at  the  custom-house,  and  was 
assured  of  protection  against  the  power  of  the  collector  to  remove  him 
from  office,  if  he  testified  fully  and  truly  to  all  he  knew  of  these  matters. 
He  gave  important  testimony;  and,  a  few  days  thereafter,  he  was  removed 
from  office  by  Mr.  Curtis,  with  the  written  assurance,  in  the  letter  of  dis- 
missal, that  there  existed  no  ground  of  complaint  against  him  for  any  mal- 
conduct  whatever.  The  person  appointed  to  succeed  him  was  the  brother- 
in-law  of  one  of  the  commissioners.  Alfred  Kelley,  Esq  ,  who  was  at  that 
time  officially  engaged,  among  other  things,  in  the  investigation  of  the  con- 
duct of  the  collector,  by  whom  the  appointment  of  his  near  relative  was 
made.  Both  the  removal  and  the  appointment  need  explanation,  to  justify 
them  as  acts  done  solely  with  a  view  to  the  public  good  ;  the  one  having 
been  without  caus3,  and  the  other  being,  on  its  face,  an  attempt,  at  least,  to 
propitiate  one  of  the  judges  who  was  charged  with  the  delicate  duty  of  , 
taking  evidence,  and  investigating  the.  official  transactions  of  the  collector. 
This  movement  may  have  been  free  from  the  taint  of  collusion  or  corrup- 
tion, but  it  is  of  a  character  sufficiently  questionable  to  attract  the  partic-  i 
ular  notice  which  is  here  bestowed  on  it. 

Henry  E.  Riell,  a  gauger  appointed  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  was  also  removed  by 
Mr.  Curtis  on  the  30th  of  April,  1841,  and  discharged  from  duty  on  the  17th 
of  May  following.    On  the  subject  of  this  removal,  several  witnesses  have  i 
testified  before  the  commissioners,  which  is  referred  to  for  more  particular  ' 
details,  but  the  substance  may  be  comprised  in  the  following  analysis  : 

Mr.  Riell  testifies  that,  immediately  after  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Curtis, 
he  waited  on  him  to  congratulate  him ;  that  he  had  previously  been  his 
friend,  and  supported  his  nomination  and  election  as  a  member  of  Congress; 
that,  at  this  interview,  Mr.  Curiis  promised  to  retain  him  in  office,  but,  at 
the  same  time,  inquired  of  him  whether,  if  retained,  he,  the  witness,  would 
pay  a  certain  note  of  six  hundred  dollars,  on  which  he  was  a  co-endorser 
with  Mr.  Curtis  and  his  brother,  George  Curtis,  the  amount  of  which  they 
had  paid,  and  taken  up  the  note?  To  which  the  witness  replied  in  the  af- 
firmative, and  was  requested  by  Mr.  Curtis  to  address  him  a  letter  on  the 
subject,  for  reasons  then  stated.  The  witness  accordingly  wrote  two  let- 
ters, differing  in  some  respects,  and  exhibited  them  to  Mr.  Curtis,  who  se- 
lected one  of  thorn  as  the  letter  proper  to  be  addressed  to  him;  which  was 
done,  and  the  collector  renewed  assurances  to  the  witness  that  he  should 
be  retained  in  office.  The  letter  delivered  to  Mr.  Curtis,  and  placed  on  the 
files  of  his  office,  and  by  him  handed  to  the  commissioners,  bears  date  March 
29,  1841,  and  is  in  the  following  words  : 

"  Dear  Sin:  As  the  position  you  now  occupy  under  the  administration 
of  President  Harrison  will  probably  lay  you  under  the  necessity  of  dispens- 
ing with  my  services  as  an  officer  of  the  customs  in  your  department,  I 
beg,  very  respectfully,  to  remind  you  that  the  entire  deprivation  of  my  pe- 
cuniary resources  which  would  be  occasioned  by  that  event  would  render 


Rep.  No.  669.  157 

me  utterly  unable  to  meet  the  private  pecuniary  obligation  to  you  under 
which  I  am  laid,  as  the  endorser  of  my  brother's  note.  I  therefore,  as  your 
debtor,  consider  it  my  duty  to  propose  that  I  shall  not  be  removed  from 
office  until  I  can  discharge  the  balance  of  this  debt  which  remains  due, 
assuring  you  that  this  is  my  only  motive  for  making  the  proposition^ 
and  the  only  condition  upon  which,  I  presume, you  would  accede  to  it. 

"  Respectfully, 

"HENRY  E.  RIELL. 

"  Hon.  Edward  Curtis, 

Collector:' 

Some  discrepancy  arose  between  the  parties  as  to  the  original  proposi- 
tion— Mr.  Riell  asserting,  under  oath,  that  it  came  from  Mr.  Curtis  to  him, 
and  that  the  above  letter  was  written  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Curtis,  submit- 
:  ted  to  him,  and  accepted,  as  unexceptionable  in  its  import  or  language. 
Mr.  Curtis,  on  the  other  hand,  alleges  that  the  proposal  was  made  to  him 
by  Mr.  Riell,  and  rejected.  Several  witnesses  were  examined,  at  the  in- 
stance of  Mr.  Curtis,  to  prove  that  he  had  informed  them  of  his  determina- 
tion to  remove  Riell  from  office.  Whether  any  such  intention  existed  in 
the  mind  of  the  collector  or  not,  or  whether  he  so  expressed  himself  to  these 
witnesses,  is  a  matter  wholly  immaterial  in  placing  a  proper  estimate  on 
this  transaction ;  nor  is  it  deemed  important  who  made  the  first  proposi- 
tion, or  whether  it  was  accepted  at  the  time  or  not.  The  letter,  a  copy  of 
which  is  above  given,  was  produced  to  the  commissioners  by  Mr.  Curtis, 
and  taken  from  the  files  of  his  office.  Its  authenticity,  therefore,  as  well  as 
its  reception,  is  admitted.  The  letter  contains  a  direct  proposal  from  an 
officer  of  the  customs,  holding  his  situation  at  the  will  of  the  collector,  to  pay 
a  debt  for  which  he  felt  himself  morally  bound,  due  and  owing  to  the  col- 
lector and  his  brother,  George  Curtis,  if  he  should  be  retained  in  office, 
which  debt  his  pecuniary  resources  would  not  enable  him  to  meet  in  care 
of  his  removal ;  and  adds  :  "I  therefore,  as  your  debtor,  consider  it  my 
duty  to  propose  that  I  shall  not  be  removed  from  office  until  I  can  dis- 
charge the  balance  of  this  debt  which  remains  due,  assuring  you  that 
this  is  my  only  motive  for  making  the  proposition,  and  the  only  condi- 
tion upon  which,  I  presume,  you  would  accede  to  it."  Here,  then,  is  an 
express  offer,  made  by  a  subordinale  officer  to  his  superior,  of  a  pecuniary 
consideration  for  being  retained  in  office,  which  is,  to  all  intents  and  pur- 
poses, equivalent  to  a  similar  offer  for  an  original  appointment.  The 
writer  of  the  letter  places  his  hopes  on  the  influence  which  he  presumes 
the  offer  would  have  on  the  mind  of  the  collector,  and  expresses  his  belief, 
in  bold  terms,  that  it  is  the  only  condition  on  which  the  collector  would  ac- 
cede to  it.  This  letter  was  received  and  put  on  file  by  the  collector  on  the 
29th  of  March,  1841,  and  the  officer  who  offered  to  him  the  pecuniary  con- 
sideration contained  in  it  was  not  removed  for  more  than  one  month  there- 
after, and  then  only  at  the  urgent  solicitation  of  the  whig  friends  of  the  col- 
lector. Why  this  delay  and  hesitation  in  performing  an  act  which  ought 
to  have  been  instantaneous  on  the  receipt  of  the  letter  containing  the  cor- 
rupt proposal  ?  To  a  high  public  functionary,  having  at  his  disposal  an 
immense  patronage,  to  be  dispensed  for  the  public  good  alone,  it  would  seem 
that  an  offer  of  money  or  other  valuable  thing  for  the  exercise  of  this  deli- 
cate and  important,  power  in  favor  of  any  individual,  in  or  out  of  office, 
would  have  been  a  direct  and  palpable  insult  to  the  purity  of  his  character 


158  Kep.  No.  669. 

and  honor  as  an  officer  of  the  Government,  not  to  be  endured  or  toleratec 
for  a  single  moment.    If,  then,  there  was,  in  point  of  fact,  no  previous  un 
derstanding  between  the  parties,  as  testified  to  by  Riell,  his  removal  shouk 
have  taken  place  on  the  instant  the  insulting  proposal  was  made.   An  lion 
orable  man,  animated  by  high  and  lofty  principles,  would  not  have  paused 
for  a  day  or  an  hour  to  calculate  the  consequences  of  performing  a  duty 
which  was  alike  due  to  himself  and  the  Government  whose  interests  h( 
represented.    But  Mr.  Curtis  did  pause  for  more  than  one  month  before  he 
performed  this  duty,  and  the  only  reason  assigned  by  him  for  the  delay 
was  the  difficulty  of  finding  a  suitable  successor!    The  facts  speak  for 
themselves,  and  the  conclusion  to  which  they  lead  must  be  left  to  the  judg' 
ment  of  the  Executive,  to  whom  Mr.  Curtis  is  responsible  as  well  for  his  I 
moral  as  his  official  conduct.    To  that  high  tribunal  it  is  submitted  withoul 
further  comment. 

Of  a  like  character,  though  differing  in  the  circumstances  attending  it,  is 
the  case  of  Peter  V.  Remsen.  Reference  is  made  to  the  deposition  of  Rem- 
sen,  and  the  statements  of  George  and  Edward  Curtis,  to  show  the  nature 
of  this  transaction.  The  existence  of  a  debt  due  from  Remson  to  George 
and  Edward  Curtis  is  admitted  by  all  the  parties.  Mr.  George  Curtis,  in 
his  explanatory  letter  to  the  commissioners,  which  forms  a  part  of  his  dep- 
osition, states :  "The  facts  are  as  follows:  Remsen,  who  was  formerly  ai 
member  of  the  legal  profession  in  this  city,  has  been  for  several  years,  and' 
still  is,  indebted  to  myself  and  my  brother.  For  two  or  three  years  past  he 
had  held  an  office  in  the  custom-house,  at  a  salary  of  some  ^900.  Some; 
time  in  April  last  I  applied  to  the  said  Remsen,  and  solicited  him  to  devotei 
a  small  portion  of  his  salary  to  the  payment  of  his  note  which  I  held." 
Remsen,  it  appears,  was  continued  in  office,  as  he  states,  under  this  ar- 
rangement, for  three  months,  and  at  the  end  of  the  first  month  made  a  pay- 
ment on  the  note  to  Mr.  George  Curtis,  which,  at  a  subsequent  day,  Mr. 
Curtis  offered  to  return,  saying  that  he  could  not  retain  it  under  the  stipu- 
lations originally  agreed  upon  ;  but  Remsen  refused  to  receive  it,  stating  to> 
Mr.  Curtis  that  "he  need  not  fear  any  disclosures  on  my  part;  and  I  in- 
sisted on  his  keeping  the  money  without  any  such  understanding  being  ex- 
pressed, which  he  did  for  a  week  or  ten  days."  The  money  was  after- 
wards returned,  in  a  letter  from  Mr.  George  Curtis,  to  Remsen,  dated  June 
5,  1841.  Mr.  Curtis  says  :  "  I  do  so  because  I  cannot  doubt  that  the  pay-: 
ment  at  this  time  is  made  by  you  under  the  impression  of  some  supposed  in- 
fluence which  I  might  or  could  exert  with  the  collector  in  relation  to  your 
continuance  in  the  office  now  held  by  you."  Why  Mr.  Curtis  "  could  not 
doubt"  that  the  payment  was  made  by  Remsen  under  the  impression  that 
his  influence  would  be  exerted  to  retain  him  in  office,  is  not  clearly  under- 
stood, unless  it  had  reference  to  a  previous  conversation  or  understanding, 
that  the  debt  was  to  be  gradually  redeemed  out  of  the  salary  of  Remsen. 
This  arrangement  Mr.  Remsen  affirms  was  made  between  himself  and  Mr. 
George  Curtis,  which  fact  is  denied  by  Mr.  Curtis ;  and  the  discrepancy  in 
their  evidence  must  rest  on  all  the  circumstances  detailed  in  their  respective 
depositions.  It  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Curtis,  that  he  made  the  proposition  to 
Remsen,  to  pay  the  debt  out  of  his  salary,  but  the  stipulation  to  have  him 
retained  in  office  on  that  condition  is  supported  only  by  the  oath  of  Rem- 
sen himself,  which  is  not  admitted  by  the  other  party.  These  contracts  for 
redeeming  debts  due  and  owing  by  subordinate  custom-house  officers  to 


Rep.  No.  669. 


159 


the  collector,  either  in  whole  or  in  part,  conflict  with  the  oath  required  of 
such  officers  of  the  customs,  which  is  in  the  following  words  : 

I,  A  B,  of  the  customs  for  the  district  of  New  York,  do  hereby  certify, 

on  oath,  that  I  have  performed  the  services  stated  in  the  above  account ; 
that  I  have  received  the  full  sum  therein  charged,  to  my  own  itse  and  ben- 
efit ;  and  that  I  have  not  paid,  deposited,  or  assigned,  nor  contracted  to  pay, 
deposite,  or  assign,  any  part  of  such  compensation  to  the  use  of  any  other 
1  person  ;  nor  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirectly,  paid  or  given,  nor  contract- 
ed to  pay  or  give,  any  reward  or  compensation  for  my  office  or  employ- 
1  inent,  or  the  emolument  thereof.    So  help  me  God. 

Sworn  and  subscribed  before  me,  this  day  of  ,  1841. 

The  solicitude  manifested  by  the  collector  to  acquit  himself  of  the  charge 
imputed  to  him,  of  collecting  debts  due  to  him  individually,  or  in  connexion 
with  his  brother,  George  Curtis,  by  officers  of  the  customs,  out  of  their 
salaries,  induced  the  commissioners  to  put  to  him  the  following  interroga- 
tories, among  others,  which  he  was  required  to  answer,  touching  his  official 
conduct : 

"Question  6.  Are  there  any  officers  of  the  customs,  appointed  by  you, 
who  are  indebted  to  you  or  George  Curtis,  individually  or  jointly  ?  and  if 
so,  were  they  so  indebted  prior  to  their  appointment  ?  and  have  you  or 
he  received  any  payment  or  payments  in  extinguishment  of  such  debts  ? 

"Question  7.  Are  there  any  officers  of  the  customs  for  whom  you  are  re- 
sponsible as  endorser  or  security,  or  for  whom  your  brother,  George  Cur- 
tis, was  so  responsible  ?  If  so,  state  whether  you  or  your  brother,  George 
Curtis,  have  received  payment  in  extinguishment  of  such  debts,  for  which 
you  or  the  said  George  Curtis  have  become  liable,  as  endorser  or  secu- 
rity?" 

To  which  questions  the  collector  answered  as  follows  : 
"One  answer  will  be  sufficient.  Both  questions  look  to  a  state  of  facts 
which  may  be  equally  innocent,  whether  they  required  affirmative  or  justi- 
fied negative  answers.  I  regard  the  questions  as  without  import,  except 
as  implying  a  charge  of  improper  motive  on  my  part,  in  the  making  of  ap- 
pointments. Regarding  them  in  this  sense,  I  meet  the  whole  matter  by  a 
full  denial  of  any  improper  motives  whatsoever  in  making  appointments 
to  office ;  and  I  trust  the  commissioners  will  yet  investigate  the  propriety 
of  the  accusation  implied  in  the  above  questions,  if  time  has  not  allowed 
the  opportunity  during  the  last  six  months." 

Here  was  an  opportunity  afforded  to  the  collector  to  put  a  general  nega- 
tive on  the  charge,  that  he  kept  in  office  particular  persons  who  were  in- 
debted to  him,  or  jointly  with  his  brother,  George  Curtis,  or  for  whom 
either  of  them  was  bound  as  endorser,  and  exacted  payment  from  such 
officers  out  of  their  respective  salaries  ;  but  it  will  be  seen  that  he  did  not 
avail  himself  of  the  occasion  to  answer  either  negatively  or  affirmatively 
on  these  points.  He  evades  the  questions,  by  the  inference  that  they  were 
designed  "  to  imply  improper  motives  on  his  (my)  part  in  the  making  of 
appointments;"  and,  without  meeting  the  questions  by  a  direct  and  posi- 
tive answer,  he  equivocates,  and  contents  himself  with  the  averment,  that 
he  had  not  been  actuated  by  "  improper  motives"  in  making  appointments 
to  office.  This  might  be  regarded  as  an  implied  admission  of  the  practice 
referred  to  in  the  questions,  which  the  collector  had  it  fully  in  his  power  to 
negative  under  oath,  if  no  such  practice  existed.  He  might  have  said,  in  a 


160 


Rep.  No.  669. 


few  words,  that  no  custom-house  officer  appointed  by  him  was  indebted 
to  him,  or  jointly  with  his  brother,  George  Curtis,  either  before  or  since 
his  appointment,  if  such  had  been  the  fact.  He  might  have  declared,  on 
oath,  that  neither  himself  or  George  Curtis  were  jointly  or  severally  bound 
as  endorsers  tor  any  custom-house  officer,  for  any  sum  of  money  whatever, 
if  he  or  they  were  not  so  bound  as  endorsers.  It  was  equally  in  his  power 
to  respond  explicitly  to  the  inquiry,  whether  such  indebtedness  or  respon- 
sibility, if  it  existed  against  any  officer  of  the  customs,  was  in  the  progress 
of  being  redeemed  by  a  fixed  portion  of  the  salary  of  such  officer,  exacted 
from  him  for  that  purpose.  All  this  might  have  been  said,  if  the  truth 
would  have  justified  it,  in  a  few  words,  by  the  collector.  But  he  satisfies 
himself  with  the  inference,  that  some  latent  imputation  was  intended  to  be 
cast  on  his  motives  in  making  appointments  ;  and,  in  his  own  words,  he 
says  :  "  Regarding  them  (the  questions)  in  this  sense,  I  meet  the  whole 
matter  by  a  full  denial  of  any  improper  motives!"  Whether  this  equiv- 
oque is  tantamount  to  an  admission  of  the  facts  alluded  to  in  the  6th  and 
7th  questions,  concerning  the  indebtedness  of  his  subordinate  officers,  as 
therein  stated,  and  the  appropriation  of  a  dividend  of  their  salaries  in  pay- 
ments made  to  the  collector  or  his  brother,  George  Curtis,  is  respectfully 
submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  Executive,  to  whom  he  is  immediately 
responsible  for  his  official  acts. 

The  undersigned,  having  received  instructions  from  the  Treasury  Depart- 
ment respecting  the  investigation  to  be  made  into  the  conduct  of  Mr. 
Curtis,  the  collector,  which  it  would  not  be  proper  to  notice  particularly  in 
this  report,  felt  it  incumbent  on  him  to  decline  any  further  participation  in.; 
taking  evidence  implicating  the  official  acts  of  that  officer.    These  instruc- 
tions are  known  at  the  Treasury  Department.    Since  the  commissioners  i 
separated  at  the  city  of  New  York,  the  undersigned,  having  remained  to  ' 
perfect  the  duties  assigned  to  him,  as  far  as  practicable,  received  informa- 
tion, from  various  sources,  of  the  existence  of  testimony  to  establish  the 
practice  of  buying  and  selling  offices  in  the  custom-house,  through  particu- 
lar agents  ;  but,  not  deeming  it  fit  "and  proper  to  enter  upon  the  examina-  . 
tion  of  evidence  on  a  subject  of  so  delicate  a  nature,  in  the  absence  of  his  ; 
colleagues,  declined  taking  any  such  testimony  while  acting  separately 
from  the  other  members  of  the  board.    Some  depositions,  however,  were  ! 
voluntarily  given  on  this  subject,  as  well  as  in  relation  to  the  collection  of 
debts  due  to  the  collector,  in  whole  or  in  part,  by  subordinate  officers  of  the  1 
customs.    These  depositions  were  handed  in;  but,  not  forming  a  part  of 
the  regular  proceedings  of  the  board,  they  are  omitted  in  this  review  of  the 
evidence.    In  like  manner,  the  expenditures  for  furniture  and  iron  work,  • 
in  and  about  the  new  custom-house  building,  was  brought  to  the  notice  of  1 
the  undersigned,  subsequent  to  the  return  of  his  colleagues  to  the  city  of 
Washington  ;  and  this  having  been  a  subject  on  which  the  commissioners 
had  sought  information  while  in  session,  and  on  which  several  reports  had 
been  made  by  the  collector,  on  the  call  of  the  board,  the  statements  made, 
on  oath,  by  experienced  and  skilful  mechanics,  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
were  received,  and  are  now  appended  to  this  report.    The  prices  paid  lor 
articles  of  furniture  for  the  new  custom-house,  and  for  iron  work  done  un- 
der contract,  were  submitted  to  these  mechanics,  and  a  comparative  state- 
ment made  between  the  prices  so  paid  and  the  rates  at  which  the  same 
furniture  and  work  might  have  been  had,  if  diligent  care  and  economy  had 
been  observed  in  making  the  contracts.  A  summary  of  this  evidence,  as  a 


Rep.  No.  669. 


corollary  of  the  communications  from  the  collector,  is  submitted,  with  the 
reservation  that  it  is  intended  more  for  the  purpose  of  inviting  a  full  inves- 
tigation of  the  subject  to  which  it  relates,  than  as  the  basis  on  which  a 
correct  and  conclusive  judgment  may  be  formed  of  the  conduct  of  the  parties 
concerned  in  these  transactions. 

A  correspondence  was  commenced  by  Jesse  Hoyt,  late  collector,  with 
Mr.  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  respecting  the  furnishing  of  the 
new  custom-house,  on  the  12th  day  of  September,  1S40,  (see  Appendix  X,) 
in  which  the  collector  informs  the  Secretary  that  the  new  custom-house 
is  in  a  state  of  forwardness  for  occupation,  and  inquires  of  the  Secretary 
as  to  the  fund  out  of  which  the  expenses  for  furnishing  the  new  building  is 
to  be  drawn,  and  what  furniture  would  be  required.  In  reply,  the  Secre- 
tary informed  the  collector,  that,  with  the  exception  of  the  furniture  for  the 
room  of  the  receiver  general,  which  might  be  charged  to  the  appropriation 
in  the  Independent  Treasury  act,  "  no  expense  can  be  incurred  without  a 
special  appropriation  having  been  made  by  Congress  for  the  purpose/'  On 
the  14th  of  November  following,  (see  Appendix  Y,)  Mr.  Hoyt  states  to 
Mr.  Woodbury,  u  I  suggest  that  you  ask  Congress  for  an  appropriation 
to  purchase  furniture  for  the  building.  Most  of  that  which  we  have  in 
the  building  we  now  occupy  is  wholly  unfit,  and  could  not  be  made  so,  for 
the  reason  that  the  shape  of  the  rooms  in  the  two  buildings  is  so  unlike, 
I  think  it  would  require  from  five  to  seven  thousand  dollars,  in  addition  to 
the  furniture  we  now  have,  that  could  be  used,  to  fit  up  all  the  rooms." 

He  adds,  further,  that  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect,  is  of  opinion  that  a  larger 
sum  would  be  required  than  he  (the  collector)  had  named.  Mr.  Wood- 
bury, on  the  13th,  (see  Appendix  Z,)  in  answer  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  expresses  a 
wish  to  submit  the  matter  to  the  appropriate  committee  at  the  meeting  of 
Congress:  and  adds  :  u  In  the  mean  time  it  is  desirable  that  Mr.  Frazee 
should  furnish  the  Department  with  a  detailed  estimate  of  the  amount,  of 
money  required  for  the  object  stated,  to  be  laid  before  the  committee." 
This  estimate  was  transmitted  to  the  Secretary  on  the  12th  of  December, 
1840,  (see  Appendix  AA,)  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  who  expresses  the  opinion,  at  the 
same  time,  that  $15,000  would  be  sufficient  to  supply  the  custom-house 
with  furniture.  The  estimate  of  Mr.  Frazee  amounts,  in  the  whole,  to 
$18,555,  and  is  said  to  have  been  made  by  Mr.  John  Horspool,  a  cabinet- 
maker in  New  York.  Various  other  letters  passed  between  the  collector, 
Mr.  Woodbury,  Mr.  Frazee,  and  Mr.  Bowne,  on  this  subject,  in  which, 
among  other  things,  Mr.  Frazee  presented  his  plans  for  the  interior  arrange- 
ment of  the  building,  which  plans  were  submitted  to  Mr.  Woodbury,  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury;  and  on  the  3d  of  March,  1841,  Mr.  Woodbury, 
in  an  official  letter  to  Walter  Bowne,  Esq.,  commissioner  of  the  new  cus- 
tom-house, states  to  him  that  "  it  is  desirable  that  Mr.  Frazee's  plans  for 
the  interior  arrangement  of  the  building  should  be  carried  into  effect,  so 
far  as  regards  the  arrangement  of  the  fly-doors,  furniture,  and  painting 
of  the  iron  vjork,"  The  estimates  of  Mr.  Frazee  were  submitted  by  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  a  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
and  rejected,  at  the  session  ©f  Congress  ending  on  the  4th  of  March,  1841. 
Mr.  Woodbury,  in  all  his  correspondence  with  Mr.  Hoyt  on  the  subject  of 
furnishing  the  new  custom-house  building,  looked  to  an  appropriation  of 
money  by  Congress  as  indispensable  to  the  commencement  of  any  expendi- 
ture for  that  purpose.    None  such  was  made  at  that  time  or  since. 

Mr.  Curtis  came  into  office  on  the  23d  of  March,  and  on  the  25th  of  the 
11 


162 


Rep.  No.  669. 


same  month  he  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Ewing,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
in  which  he  informs  him  "  the  late  Secretary,  after  much  inquiry  and  ex- 
amination,decided  that  Mr.  Frazee  should  goon  to  furnish  the  custom-house, 
and  furnish  it  in  his  own  way,  and  without  the  interference  of  Mr.  Bowne, 
who  differs  in  opinion  with  the  architect.''  In  another  letter  from  Mr. 
Curtis  to  Mr.  Ewing,  under  date  April  1st,  1841,  he  says:  "If  you  will 
give  me  authority,  I  will  proceed  to  furnish  the  building,  pursuing  thei 
pi  m  proposed  by  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect,  to  the  late  Secretary,  and 
which  was  approved  by  him"  He  further  adds,  in  the  same  letter, "  I. 
shall,  of  course,  observe  the  utmost  economy  in  furnishing  the  new  house, 
consistent  with  the  plans  of  the  architect;  which.  I  have  before  said,  were 
approved  by  the  late  Secretary,  whose  letter  I  have  seen,  directing  Mr. 
Frazee  to  pursue  his  plan,  &c;  and  not  that  of  Mr.  Bowne."  To  these 
letters  Mr.  Ewing  returned  the  following  answer: 

"Treasury  Department,  Jipril  5,  1841. 
"  Sir  :  In  consideration  of  the  circumstances  mentioned  in  your  letter  ol> 
the  1st  instant,  I  deem  it  proper  to  authorize  you  to  furnish  the  new 
custom-house  plainly  and  substantially,  using  so  much  of  the  old  furni- 
ture as  may  be  convenient,  and  taking  care  to  exercise  proper  economy  in 
the  matter." 

It  will  be  seen,  by  reference  to  the  various  letters  of  Mr.  Woodbury  to. 
Mr.  Hoyt  and  others,  relative  to  the  purchase  of  furniture  for  the  new 
custom-house,  that  the  purchases  were  suspended  until  a  fund  should  be 
provided,  by  a  special  appropriation,  to  meet  the  expenditure.  It  alsc 
appears,  by  the  extract  of  the  letter  of  Mr.  Woodbury,  given  above,  thai 
he  did  not  approve  the  plan  of  Mr.  Frazee  in  extenso,  for  furnishing  the 
building,  as  Mr.  Curtis  has  stated,  but  limits  himself  simply  to  the  44  plar 
for  the"  interior  arrangement  of  the  building,  so  far  as  regards  thei 
arrangement  of  the  fly-doors,  furniture,  and  painting  of  the  iron  work.'  > 
The  approbation  of  Mr.  Woodbury  is  nowhere  given  to  the  estimate  sub 
mitted  to  him  by  the  architect,  but  is  confined  to  the  arrangement  of  the 
interior  of  the  building,  in  putting  up  the  furniture,  erecting  fly-doors,  and 
painting  of  the  iron  work.  This  certainly  falls  far  short  of  the  approva 
mentioned  to  Mr.  Ewing  in  the  letters  of  Mr.  Curtis,  and  on  which  Mr 
Ewing  gave  permission  to  the  collector  to  proceed  in  furnishing  the  build- 
ing according  to  that  estimate.  The  rejection  by  the  committee  of  th( 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  estimate  and  plans  of  Mr.  Frazee,  which 
were  submitted  to  them  by  the  Secretary,  would  have  been  sufficient, tc 
induce  the  Secretary,  as  a  matter  of  duty,  to  withhold  a  subsequent  appro- 
bation  of  them,  even  had  he  entertained  that  opinion  prior  to  the  decisior 
of  the  committee. 

On  the  10th  of  April,  1841,  Mr.  Curtis  authorized  Mr.  Joseph  Hough,  z 
broker  in  New  York,  to  make  a  contract  or  contracts  with  suitable  workmer 
to  supply  the  furniture  required  at  the  new  custom-house.  In  his  letter  of  in 
structions  to  Mr.  Hough,  for  his  government  iu  the  discharge  of  the  duty  con 
fided  to  him,  which  are  very  specific,  he  says :  "  You  will  call  the  manu- 
facturers to  the  new  custom-house,  and  there,  with  them,  wait  upon  Mr 
Frazee,  who  will  exhibit  the  plans  and  drawings  of  the  furniture  to  the 
made,  under  his  direction  and  superintendence  ;  and  to  his  satisfaction  be 
whole  work  must  be  done."  Again  he  instructs  Mr.  Hough  :  «  When  yoi 


mj>.  No.  669. 


163 


ure  prepared  with  any  man  or  men  with  whom  you  think,  upon  the  whole 
it  will  be  most  prudent  to  contract  for  all  the  work,  or  a  portion  of  it,  bring 
the  men  to  me,  and,  if  I  am  satisfied  with  the  prices — as  I  presume  I  shall 
be  with  your  judgment — I  will  close  the  contract."  It  does  not  appear 
that  any  call  of  the  manufacturers  to  the  new  cusiom  house  was  made, nor 
that  Mr.  Hough  went  with  then)  to  Mr.  Frazee  to  see  his  u  plans  and  draw- 
ings of  the  furniture  to  be  made;"  neither  did  he  obey  the  order  of  the 
collector,  to  bring  the  men  !o  him,  with  whom  he  might  contract  for  the 
whole  work,  or  a  portion  of  it,  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  his  approba- 
tion of  the  prices  before  the  contract  was  closed.  These  precautions,  care- 
fully inserted  in  the  instructions,  which,  doubtless,  if  carried  into  effect, 
would,  by  competition  among  the  manufacturers,  have  greatly  reduced  the 
prices  at  which  the  work  won  d  have  been  undertaken,  were  wholly  disre- 
garded, and  Mr.  Hough  took  the  responsibi  ity  on  himself  of  selecting  a 
manufacturer  of  his  own  choosing,  with  whom  the  contract  was  made.  In 
his  letter  to  the  colleciorof  April  20,  18  II,  he  says:  "  I  have  made  inquiry 
among  the  cabinet  makers,  and  have  finally  selected  Mr.  Abraham  Storm, 
as  one  likely  to  give  satisfaction,  both  as  to  stvle  of  work  and  economy  in 
expense,  and  have  his  estimate  for  furnishing  the  new  custom-house,  which 
I  herewith  hand  you.  The  estimate  is  made  on  the  list  and  description  of 
articles,  as  made  by  Mr.  F  razee."  In  pursuance  of  this  selection,  made  by 
Mr.  Hough,  Mr.  Curtis,  on  the  24th  day  of  April,  1841,  entered  into  arti- 
cles of  agreement,  with  Abraham  Storm,  for  the  supply  of  the  entire  furni- 
ture which  he  deemed  requisite  ar  the  new  custom-house,  and  took,  as  the 
basis  of  the  contract,  the  plans,  drawings,  and  estimates,  previously  made 
by  Mr.  Fraz  »e,  and  which,  after  examination  by  a  committee  of  Co  igress, 
had  been  disagreed  to.  Too  collector  "reserves  to  himself  the  right  to  dis- 
pense with  any  portion  of  the  work  contained  in  the  annexed  estimate; 
also,  the  right  fo  vary  from  the  said  estimate  ;  and,  in  case  of  variation,  the 
prices  of  ttie  substituted  work  are  to  conform,  as  near  as  may  be,  to  the 
prices  of  tiie  within  estimate,  according  to  their  relative  value/'  Some 
inner  privileges  are  reserved  to  the  collector  ;  but  he  finally  "  agrees  to  make 
payment  to  the  said  Abraham  Storm,  according  to  the  annexed  estimate 
(being  the  estimate  rejected  by  the  committee  of  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives) and  the  terms  of  this  contract,  so  fast  as  the  said  furniture,  or  any 
portion  thereof,  shall  be  deliver  d,  and  approved  of  by  the  said  Edward 
Curtis,  the  collector,  and  Mr.  Frazee,  the  architect.' '  Mr.  Ewiug  instructs 
the  collector  to  "furnish  the  new  custom-house  plainly  and  substantially, 
taking  car  -  to  exercise  a  proper  economy  in  the  matter."  Some  of  the 
commissioners  visited  the  custom-house,  and  examined  the  furniture  as  it 
was  placed,  who  represented  it  to  be  of  the  most  extravagant  description; 
but  no  testimony  was  taken  by  the  commission  to  t<  st  its  value,  when  com- 
pared with  the  usual  pri  -es  paid  for  similar  work  in  New  York.  A  few  of 
the  items  in  the  estimate  under  which  the  contract  was  made  will  serve  to 
show  the  general  character  of  the  furniture,  and  the  prices  at  which  it  was 
estimated  : 

Two  large  mahogany  book  cases,  14  feet  long,  11  feet  high,  filled 
with  pigeon  holes,  showing  12  doors  in  front,  with  suitable  case 
and  cornice,  $396  each  $792 

"Six  large  mahogany  book  cases,  filled  with  partitions,  with  doors, 

G  feet  G  inches  long  and  high,  $98  each  -  5SS 


164  Rep.  No.  669. 

Eight  large  mahogany  book  cases,  filled  with  partitions,  with  doors, 
13  feet  long,  $192  each   -----  -#1,53 

Twelve  large  mahogany  book  cases,  6  feet  long,  11  feet  high,  filled 
in  with  pigeon  holes,  with  6  doors  in  front  and  writing  table  be- 
low, with  drawers  in  frame,  cloth  on  top,  $192  each      -  -  2,30 
Four  large  mahogany  book  cases,  14  feet  long,  12doorseach,$396each  1,58 
One  large  mahogany  book  case,  9  feet  long,  8  doors          -  -  29* 
These  items  correspond  with  the  other  estimates  annexed  to  the  contrat 
with  Abraham  Storm  ;  the  whole  of  which,  for  desks,  book  cases,  and  cour  I 
ters  alone,  amounts  to  the  enormous  sum  of  $18,555.  What  portion  of  th 
sum  has  already  been  expended,  and  how  far  the  work  may  have  bee' 
varied  from  the  original  plans  and  drawings,  is  not  l^iown,  except  th 
payment  of  $7,000,  which  is  charged,  as  an  expense  incidental  to  the  co 
lection  of  the  revenue,  to  the  fund  derived  from  the  fees  and  emoluments  cj 
the  collector,  no  further  report  on  that  subject  having  been  furnished  t  jj 
the  commissioners  by  the  collector.    The  call  of  the  House  of  Represen 
atives  on  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  for  information  as  to  what  amour 
had  been  expended  in  the  purchase  of  furniture  for  the  custom-house  i 
New  York,  .^ince  the  4th  day  of  March,  1841 ;  also,  the  items  of  furniture 
also,  under  what  authority  the  purchases  had  been  made,  and  out  of  wru 
particular  funds  payment  has  been  or  is  contemplated  to  be  made,  was  ar. 
sweredby  Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector,  by  a  copy  of  the  schedule  of  the  iterr." 
of  furniture,  only  omitting  the  prices  at  which  the  articles  of  furniture  wei 
estimated,  and  the  contract  under  which  the  work  was  performed.  N 
reply  was  made  as  to  the  amount  which  had  been  expended,  other  tha 
the  sum  of  $7,000,  before  noticed,  or  of  the  fund  out  of  which  it  is  conteir 
plated  to  make  future  payments.    The  authority  under  which  the  pun 
chases  have  been  made  is  traced  by  the  collector  to  Mr.  Woodbury ;  bi. 
no  such  authority  is  to  be  found  in  his  correspondence,  without  specif 
appropriation  for  that  object,  which  was  applied  for  and  refused  hy  Congres: 
The  payment  of  $7,000  is  charged  by  the  collector,  in  the  absence  of  at 
appropriation  made  by  law,  to  the  receipts  derived  from  the  fees  an, 
emoluments  which  are  directed  by  law  to  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  th' 
salaries  of  the  collector,  naval  officer,  and  surveyor,  and  other  expense, 
incident  to  the  office  of  collector.    The  overplus,  if  any,  is  to  be  paid  int 
the  Treasury.    Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  letter  to  the  commissioners  of  the  20t| 
of  November,  1841,  says  : 

"  In  regard  to  the  inquiry  of  the  commissioners,  whether  the  paymer 
of  the  said  sum  of  $7,000  has  or  has  not,  to  that  extent,  created  a  deficienc 
in  the  payment  of  the  charges  by  law  to  be  made  on  that  fund,  I  hav 
the  honor  to  state  that,  so  far  as  I  can  learn,  the  said  payment  has  nc 
created  a  deficiency,  and  that  no  deficiency  exists." 

On  the  receipt  of  this  letter,  the  commissioners  put  to  the  collector  th 
following  question  : 

"In  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  you  state  that  the  payment  of  $7,00 
has  created  no  deficiency,  and  no  deficiency  exists  in  the  amount  of  fee 
and  emoluments,  in  the  payment  of  the  charges  by  law  made  on  that  func 
Be  pleased  to  state  the  aggregate  amount  of  fees  and  emoluments  for  eac 
year,  from  January  1,  I  $25,  to  30th  September  last;  and  the  aggregat 
amount  of  clerk  hire,  fuel,  and  stationery,  and  other  incidental  expense.', 
and  the  sum  or  sums,  if  any,  paid  into  the  Treasury,  as  fees  or  emoluments 
in  each  year;  and  the  sum  or  sums  of  money,  if  any,  paid  out  of  the 
Treasu  y  in  each  year, to  make  up  deficiencies." 


Rep.  No.  669. 


165 


To  which  the  collector  answered,  under  oath,  as  follows  : 
"This  is  not  deemed  a  deficiency, nor  can  it  be  so  considered, because,  what- 
verthe  tariff  act  of  July  14,  1832,  has  taken  away,  the  subsequent  annual 
ppropriation  ac  s  have  made  good.    When  any  item  of  expense  is  charged 
)  the  fund  derived  from  the  fees  and  emoluments  of  the  collector,  &c,  it  is 
harged  to  that  fund  which  is  composed  of  the  fees  and  emoluments 
dually  collected  at  the  custom-house  under  the  existing  tariff  laws,  to- 
ether  with  a  sum  annually  derived  from  the  Treasury,  sufficient  to  pre- 
erve  the  whole  fund  equal  to  what  it  would  have  been,  if  all  the  fees  and 
moluments  had  been  collected,  which  would  have  been  collected  had  not 
he  tariff  of  duties  been  modified  by  the  act  of  July  14,  1832.    It  was 
nder  the  advice  of  one  of  the  most  experienced  and  intelligent  persons 
mployed  in  the  department  of  the  Treasury  (then  at  the  custom  house) 
hat  my  letter  of  the  1st  of  April  suggested  to  the  Secretary  that  the  ex- 
cuse of  the  furniture  could  lawfully  be  charged  to  the  fund  derived  from 
ses  and  emoluments.    The  charge  of  the  $7,000  paid  for  furniture  can 
e  no  more  said  to  have  created  a  deficiency  in  that  fund,  than  the  pay- 
ment of  the  salaries  of  clerks,  or  the  payment  of  any  other  expense,  charge- 
ble  upon  the  fund,  to  a  like  amount,  would  create  a  deficiency.    At  ihe 
ime  of  that  payment,  the  fees  actually  collected  for  this  year  far  exceeded 
hat  sum ;  and  the  charge  of  the  cost  of  furniture  to  that  fund  of  course 
liminishes  that  fund,  but  does  not  create  a  deficiency.    All  expenses  of 
;>lfice  are  first  paid,  and  among  them  the  furniture  is  included ;  and  for  the 
payment  of  salaries  resort  is  had  to  the  appropriation  act,  if  necessary." 
1  Mr.  Curtis,  in  his  letter  to  the  commissioners,  states  explicitly  that  the 
Payment  of  $7,000  for  furniture  has  not,  to  that  extent,  created  a  de- 
iciency  in  the  payment  of  the  charges  by  law  to  be  made  on  that  fund, 
md  that  no  deficiency  exists.    In  his  deposition  he  admits  that  the  appli- 
;ation  of  $7,000,  drawn  from  this  fund,  to  the  purchase  of  furniture,  di- 
ninishes  it  below  the  charges  made  by  law  on  the  fees  and  emoluments  ; 
md  that  it  is  his  intention  to  look  to  an  appropriation  by  Congress  to  make 
*ood  the  deficiency  thus  created.    In  this  manner  he  has  drawn  money 
rom  the  Treasuiy,  not  only  without  an  appropriation  made  by  law,  but  in 
lefiance  of  a  refusal  by  Congress,  at  the  preceding  session,  to  make  any 
ippropriation  whatever  for  the  object  to  which  he  applied  it.    First,  he 
denies  that  any  deficiency  was  created  by  the  abstraction  of  that  sum  from 
fees  and  emoluments  received  at  the  custom-house,  and  asserts  that  no 
deficiency  exists  in  that  fund,  for  the  purposes  to  which  it  is  directed  by 
aw  to  be  applied.    He  then  turns  round  and  admits  the  deficiency  created 
by  his  own  act  ;  but,  by  a  process  of  ieasoning  which  is  not  clearly  under- 
stood, he  insists  that  a  deficiency  in  the  fund  is  no  deficiency,  because  the 
vacuum  can  be  filled  by  an  appropriation  !    Mr.  Woodbury,  it  seems,  did 
not  recommend  a  resort  to  this  expedient,  for  the  purpose  of  evading  the 
refusal  of  Congress  to  grant  the  money,  but  invariably  he  informed  Mr. 
Hoyt  that  nothing  could  be  done  without  an  appropriation. 

How  far  this  usurpation  of  power  over  the  public  money,  in  violation  of 
the  Constitution,  will  meet  the  rebuke  of  the  Government,  remains  to  be 
seen.  The  undersigned  was  distinctly  informed,  by  respectable  manufac- 
turers of  furniture  in  New  York,  that  the  prices  in  the  estimate  attached 
to  the  contract  between  the  collector  and  Abraham  Storm  are  about  100 
per  cent.,  on  most  of  the  articles  named  in  the  schedule,  above  the  prices 
at  which  similar  work,  equal  in  all  respects  in  point  of  quality  and  work- 


166  Rep.  No.  669, 

manship,  might  he  contracted  for  and  executed  in  the  city  of  Now  York". 
But  the  intervention  of  caus<  s  over  which  the  commissioners  had  no  con- 
trol prevented  the  examination  of  numerous  witnesses  on  this  subject,  as 
well  as  the  expenditure  for  iron  woik  on  the  new  custom-house,  which  it 
will  be  found  is  even  more  enormous  and  extravagant  tl.an  the  estimate 
of  furniture  for  the  same  building.    It  appears  that,  on  ti  e  4th  day  of 
January,  1S37,  a  contract  was  entered  into  between  Walter  Bowne,  Ben- 
jamin Ringgold,  and  Daniel  Jackson,  commissioners  on  the  part  of  the 
Government  ot  the  United  States,  and  John  G.  Tibbcts,  blacksmith,  of  the 
city  of  New  York,  for  the  whole  supply  of  the  iron  work  which  might  be-  ■ 
deemed  necessary  and  proper  for  the  custom-house,  until  the  building  was 
completed.    This  iron  work,  as  specified  in  the  contract,  was  of  various 
descriptions,  some  of  it  of  the  finest  class  of  work  and  materials;  but  by 
far  the  larger  portion  was  stipulated  to  be  done  of  cast  iron,  and  other  iron> 
of  about  equal  cost,  put  up  with  less  regard  to  workmanship ;  but  the  , 
whole  is  placed  at  an  average  cost  of  18£  cents  per  pound.    In  this  esti-  j 
male  the  Sub-Treasury  vault  is  not  included,  that  work  having  been  con- 
tracted for  after  the  passage  of  the  act  of  the  4th  of  July,  1S40,  commonly 
called  the  Independent  Treasury  act.    The  cost  of  this  vault,  at  the  rate 
of  twenty-five  cents  per  pound  on  the  iron,  is  #6,502  ;  to  which  must  be. 
added  the  price  of  two  locks  for  the  vault,  being  $600,  amounting  in  the  . 
whole  to  $7,102.    The  following  abstract  of  moneys  paid  for  iron  work 
on  the  new  custom-house  exhibits  the  dates  at  which  the  bills  were  ren-  i 
dered,  and  the  amount  of  each  bill,  ending  on  the  16th  day  of  April,  184  U 
The  aggregate  amount,  up  to  that  date,  of  payments  made  for  iron  work  i 
of  every  description  on  the  building,  is  #92,316  70;  which,  including  j 
the  cost  of  the  Sub-Treasury  vault  and  locks,  makes  the  round  sum  ot 
#99,418  70. 

Abstract  of  moneys  paid  for  iron  work  for  new  custom-house,  New  York. 

April,  1837,  to  February,  1S38         ....  $21,703  63- 

February  21,  1838    -           -           -           -          -           -  4,303  63 

August  6,  1838         -  2,614  7^ 

September  15,  1838  ------  2,315  83  i 

October  29,  1S3S      ------  2,336  36 

December  19,  1838  ------  1,497  39 

January  24,  1839      -           -           -           -           -  1,289  45-  I 

March  13,  1839        ------  4.118  47 

April  1,  1839            -  2^458  83 

May  2,  1839             -  5,460  47 

Certificate  No.  11,  April  9,  1838       -  4,485  88 

May  10,  1838           -           -           -           -           -           -  3,975  4fr 

June  4,  183S            ------  4,251  48 

July  3,  1838             -           -           -           -           -           -  3,688  90 

July  20,  1839           ------  1,367  70 

September  2,  1839    ------  1,453  13 

November  26,  1839  2,5S5  00 

May  20,  1840           ------  7,963  88 

July  28,  1840           ------  3,757  35 

November  5,  1840    ------  1,740  48 

November  7,  1840    -          -          -          -                    -  1,7S7  30 

February  1,  1841                -          -          -         -          -  75  Ofr 


Rep.  No.  669.  167 

April  16,  1841          ------  $7,084  94 

April  16,  1841,  Sub-Treasury  vault  -  6,502  75 

April  16,  1841,  locks  for  Sub-Treasury  vault          -  450  00 

April  16,  1841,    do              do                   -          -  150  00 

Total       -  -      99,418  70 

The  whole  of  this  work,  except  the  vault  and  locks,  was  executed  and 
paid  for  during  the  term  of  office  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  under  the  contract  made 
by  the  commissioners  with  J.  G.  Tibbets.    The  vault  and  locks  were  paid 
for  under  an  appropriation  made  by  Congress  after  the  present  collector 
came  into  office.    The  original  contract  with  Tibbets  enumerates  the  va- 
rious descriptions  of  work  to  be  done  on  the  building,  the  classes  of  iron, 
from  the  lowest  to  the  highest,  of  which  the  work  was  to  be  composed, 
and  closes  with  the  following  stipulation  :  "  And  the  said  parties  of  the 
first  part,  commissioners  aforesaid,  do  covenant  and  agree  that  they  will 
pay  unto  the  said  party  of  the  second  part  the  sum  of  18$  cents  per  pound 
for  all  the  said  iron  work  so  required  throughout,  and  which  shall  be 
weighed  at  the  building,  when  delivered  and  approved/'    It  appears,  by 
this  contract,  that  the  average  price  at  which  the  whole  of  the  iron  work 
is  fixed  is  the  maximum  price  of  the  highest  class  of  fine  work,  directed 
by  the  architect  to  be  done  on  the  building.  An  examination  was  made  of 
the  entire  work,  as  it  is  placed  in  and  about  the  custom-house,  by  two 
respectable  blacksmiths  of  the  city  of  New  York,  whose  statement  is  ap- 
pended to  this  report.    John  M.  Winant,  a  blacksmith  of  undoubted  skill 
and  respectability,  made  the  first  examination  of  the  work,  and  noted  the 
prices  at  which  it  might  have  been  contracted  for,  and  executed  in  a  work- 
manlike manner.    This  statement,  after  a  subsequent  and  separate  exami- 
nation of  the  work  made  by  J.  C.  Robertson,  another  blacksmith  of  equal 
standing  and  respectability,  was  concurred  in  by  him,  and  a  certificate  to 
that  effect,  made  under  his  signature  at  the  foot  of  the  estimates  made  by 
Mr.  Winant.    The  estimates  of  these  two  blacksmiths  range  the  prices  of 
the  iron  work  done  on  the  new  custom-house,  under  the  original  contract, 
at  a  minimum  of  6  cents  per  pound,  and  a  maximum  of  18?  cents  per 
pound,  instead  of  an  average  price  of  18£  cents  per  pound,  as  stipulated  to 
be  paid  for  the  whole  work  by  the  contract  of  the  commissioners  with  J. 
G.  Tibbets.  The  Sub-Treasury  vault,  which  was  paid  for  at  the  rate  of  25 
cents  per  pound,  is  valued  by  the  above-named  blacksmiths  at  181  cents 
per  pound.    The  result  of  the  comparative  value  of  the  whole  work,  as 
fixed  by  the  estimates  of  Winant  and  Robertson,  and  prices  actually  paid 
at  the  custom-house,  show  that  the  contract  might  have  been  made  at  a 
saving  to  the  Government  of  one-half  the  sum  actually  paid  out  of  the 
Treasury  in  virtue  of  the  original  contract  of  the  commissioners.  Since 
the  present  collector  came  into  office,  the  iron  work  on  the  building  has 
progressed  to  a  considerable  extent,  if  it  be  not  fully  completed.    No  new 
contract  or  change  of  rates  has  taken  place,  but,  as  far  as  the  commission- 
ers are  informed,  the  collector  has  thrown  himself  back  upon  the  old  con- 
tract, not  only  for  the  work  therein  described,  but  for  desk  stands,  of  which 
there  are  a  large  number  ordered  by  the  collector,  which,  being  a  deviation 
from  the  original  contract,  ought  to  have  been  separated  from  it.  Mr. 
Winant  and  Mr.  Robertson  state  this  description  of  work  at  8  cents  per 
pound  ;  it  has  probably  been  paid  for  as  the  other  work  is,  at  I85  cents 
per  pound,  or,  if  payment  is  suspended  for  an  appropriation,  the  estimate 


168 


Rep.  No.  669. 


of  the  amount  due  will  be  founded  on  the  contract  with  J.  G.  Tibbets. 
The  amount  now  due  and  unpaid,  for  iron  work  of  various  descriptions,  exe- 
cuted in  the  year  1S41,  is  not  known,  as  the  collector  professes  to  have  no 
knowledge  on  the  subject,  alleging  that  the  expenditures  for  this  work  are 
under  a  contract  made  by  the  commissioners  with  J.  G.  Tibbets. 

On  the  ISth  of  November,  1841,  the  commissioners  passed  an  order  in 
the  following  worr's  :  "That  the  collector  be  requested  to  furnish  the 
commissioners  with  a  more  full  and  complete  answer  to  their  order  of  the 
8th  instant,  setting  forth  specially  and  particularly  with  whom  any  con- 
tract for  iron  work,  in  and  about  the  new  custom-house  building,  has  been 
made,  and  by  what  authority  ;  and,  also,  to  furnish  the  commissioners  with 
a  copy  of  such  contract  or  contracts,  and  all  the  correspondence  relating 
to  the  same ;  and  if  no  part  of  the  money  has  been  paid  to  the  workmen 
employed,  to  state  the  fact  distinctly.  And,  fuither,  if  any  amount  of  money 
has  been  paid  under  said  contract  or  contracts,  by  whom  and  by  whose 
order  and  authority,  and  to  what  fund,  has  the  same  been  made  chargea- 
ble or  has  been  charged."  In  reply  to  this  order,  the  collector  addressed 
a.  letter  to  the  commissioners,  from  which  the  following  extract  is  given: 
"  I  have  been  informed  and  believe  that  the  large  iron  Sub-Treasury  safe, 
the  iron  railing,  and  other  iron  work  of  the  custom-house,  have  been  pro- 
vided under  some  order,  contract,  or  agreement,  made  by  the  late  Judge 
Benjamin  Ringgold  and  others,  commissioners  appointed  by  the  President 
of  the  United  States  for  the  construction  of  the  new  custom-house,  with 
John  G.  Tibbets,  ironmonger.  What  were  the  powers  or  authority  of 
these  commissioners  I  am  wholly  ignorant,  never  having  seen  their  com- 
mission or  their  correspondence  with  the  Department,  or  had  any  conver- 
sation with  them  on  this  subject:  and,  having  no  means  to  control  their 
papers,  it  is  wholly  out  of  my  power  to  furnish  a  copy  of  any  of  the  va- 
rious contracts  they  may  have  made."  To  which,  in  the  same  letter,  the 
collector  adds  :  "  If  it  be  the  wish  of  the  commissioners,  I  will  with  pleasure 
make  any  application  to  the  co  umissioners  for  the  constructing  of  the  cus- 
tom-house, for  information  upon  this  subject,  and  communicate  the  result." 
The  contract  of  the  building  commissioners  was  entered  into  long  prior  to 
the  passage  of  the  Independent  Treasury  act ;  and  there  does  not  appear 
to  have  been  any  new  contract,  embracing  the  expense  of  the  Sub-Treasury 
vault,  as  Mr.  Curtis  has  intimated.  The  price  of  the  iron  work  on  this 
vault  is  placed  above  the  extravagant  rates  of  the  other  iron  work  on  the 
building,  and  therefore  cannot  properly  come  under  the  original  contract. 
By  a.  letter  received  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  it  appears  that 
on  the  6th  of  April,  1S41,  G.  F.  Tallman  was  appointed  by  the  late  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  sole  commissioner  and  disbursing  agent  to  pay  off 
the  balances  of  claims  due  for  materials  and  work  done  on  the  new  custom- 
house building.  This  appointment  was  made  on  the  recommendation  of 
Mr.  Curtis.  On  the  30th  of  April  Mr.  Tallman  closed  his  accounts  at  the 
Treasury  Department,  and  since  that  time  there  has  been  no  building 
commissioner  appointed.  How  these  facts  could  have  been  unknown  to 
Mr.  Curtis  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  ;  but  in  his  letter  to  the  commission- 
ers, an  extract  of  which  is  given  above,  he  recognises  the  existence  of  such 
a  commission,  and  states  his  readiness,  if  desired,  to  make  "  application  to 
the  commissioners  for  constructing  the  custom-house,  for  information" 
on  the  subjects  referred  to  in  the  order  above  mentioned.  These  transac- 
tions require  a  more  particular  investigation  than  has  been  given  to  them 
under  the  limited  powers  of  the  commissioners. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


169 


So  far  as  the  undersigned  has  been  enabled  to  look  into  the  expenditures 
at  the  custom-house,  since  Mr.  Curtis  came  into  office,  he  has  discovered 
nothing  which  would  justify  the  opinion  that  they  have  been  diminished 
in  any  branch  falling  under  the  special  cognizance  and  supervision  of  the 
collector.  Whatever  reforms  may  have  been  made  in  the  economy  of  sup- 
plies to  the  various  departments  of  the  custom-house  must  be  ascribed  to 
the  appraisers,  naval  officer,  surveyor  of  the  port,  and  public  storekeeper. 
In  these  departments  a  morp.  rigid  economy  appears  to  be  observed  than  was 
practised  under  Mr.  Hoyt,  who  exercised  over  these  officers  unlimited  con- 
:rol  in  all  respects  whatever.  The  power  of  the  collector  over  these  offi- 
cers has  undergone  no  change  by  law  ;  but  a  new  organization,  in  many 
particulars,  has  been  made  at  the  Treasury  Department,  which  places  them 
n  an  attitude  more  independent  of  the  will  of  the  collector  than  hereto- 
fore, and  creates  new  responsibilities  in  the  expenses  incident  to  their  offi- 
ces well  calculated  to  lessen  these  expenses. 

By  an  official  letter  from  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  bearing  date  March  14, 1842,  it  appears  that  the 
imountof  revenue  collected  at  that  port  for  the  year  1S41  is  §10,802,119  94, 
md  that  the  cost  of  collection  was  §598,435  61,  equal  to  5T5T4T  per  cent,  on 
he  whole  sum  collected.  From  this  general  statement,  contained  in  the 
etter  of  the  collector,  it  is  manifest  that  no  retrenchment  in  the  expenses 
it  the  custom-house  has  been  introduced  into  practice  by  Mr.  Curtis,  since 
lis  appointment ;  and  that  the  cost  of  collection,  during  his  first  year,  sur- 
>asses  the  most  extravagant  year  of  Mr.  Hoyt.  In  the  letter  of  Mr.  Curtis, 
)efore  referred  to,  he  attempts  to  draw  a  parallel  between  the  revenue  col- 
ected  in  1829  and  the  cost  of  collection,  and  the  year  1841,  and  to  account 
"or  the  excess  of  the  latter  year  over  the  former  in  the  expenses  of  col- 
ection,  being  §385,904  50.  The  causes  to  which  he  traces  this  large 
imount  of  excess  will  appear  in  his  letter,  to  which  reference  is  made  for 
greater  certainty,  as  injustice  might  be  done  to  him  by  a  synopsis  of  the 
statistics  and  reasoning  by  which  he  expects  to  justify  the  increased  ex- 
)enditure.  The  vast  increase  of  expense  in  the  collection  of  the  revenue, 
)etween  the  two  years  selected  by  Mr.  Curtis,  compared  with  the  amount 
)f  duties  collected,  is  ascribed  by  the  collector,  in  his  letter  to  the  Secretary 
>f  the  Treasury,  to  the  modification  of  the  tariff  in  1833,  under  which  the 
ist  of  articles  admitted  free  of  duty  was  greatly  increased, as  also  the  num- 
)er  of  entries,  and  the  forms  of  office  changed,  which  rendered  a  greater 
lumber  of  clerks,  laborers,  and  inferior  officers  of  every  grade,  necessary 
o  carry  the  new  system  into  effect.  Other  causes  are  mentioned  in  his  let- 
er,  which  it  may  be  proper  to  notice  hereafter,  so  far  as  his  facts  can  be 
separated  from  the  elaborate  argument  with  which  they  are  connected. 
?or  the  purpose  of  presenting  this  whole  subject  of  expense,  at  the  New 
fork  custom-house  in  a  clear  light,  disrobed  of  all  mystification,  it  is  deemed 
)roper  to  give  the  following  tabular  statement,  commencing  with  the  year 
L825,  and  closing  with  the  year  1841,  including  eight  years  under  the  tariff 
aws  prior  to  to  the  year  1833,  and  nine  years  since  the  compromise  act, 
vhich,  according  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Curtis,  has  caused  the  increased  ex- 
)ense  of  the  latter  year. 

This  statement  will  furnish,  from  official  returns,  the  gross  amount  of  im- 
)orts  and  exports  of  each  year,  the  amount  of  revenue  collected,  the  cost  of 
:ollection,  and  the  number  of  officers  of  every  grade  employed  in  the  col- 
ection : 


170 


Rep.  No.  669. 


£  » 

D,— 
K 

w 


NOOOWO'NCDOOIMOO'}1- t  CO  CN  CO 
^^COtCW^O^C^t^iO^io  — ^       O  O  CN  00  Tf 

~*      co      of  «o  to  co  oT  i/f  «o  cT  at  to  r?  m  v? 

0)HHH(NWCOTrTCOOTj«Tfvo>CW5iO 


5c  0)OOic?505iOn©OO^h'^NN'-00 

s  u 
2  b 

fn  3 


cEatOOCSONOOCnONNN'tQOOO 

3  j)HHHHO)WNNCOCOCO^«T)«1't1' 


C  3 


»— t 

CI 

1— 1 

CO 

C5 

o 

o 

CO 

<N 

O 

cs  CO 

rf 

CN 

QO 

O* 

CO 

CN 

CO 

CO 

CO 

0 

O 

CO 

CS  CO 

C3 

O 

CN 

»o 

r«- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

*t 

CN 

CO 

>o 

CO 

CN  — 1 

C. 

O 

CO 

l> 

>o 

CO 

CO 

IO 

0 

cs 

CO 

us 

.£ 

i— • 

CO 

CO 

CO^ 

»o 

cr^ 

IO 

q 

co 

r-t 

"3 

of 

«o 

r-' 

IO 

©» 

of 

CO 

C 

OS 

co" 

co" 

*cr 

0  t^" 

of 

q 

»o 

i— < 

TT 

OS 

t- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

03 

0 

l> 

»o 

h- 

CD 

o 

©^ 

0^ 

% 

OS  «o 

*o 

I— 1 

co 

CO 

co" 

iff 

o" 

m 

cT 

0 

tv 

cT 

0" 

CO  t> 

cf 

1— 1 

OS 

CX> 

uo 

h? 

c 

rr 

cs 

o 

CO 

w 

CO 

0 

CO 

CO  c 

OS 

CN 

CO 

co 

o 

c> 

i—i 

CS 

0 

CO 

CN 

CN  t^- 

°i 

°i 

© 

CO 

50 

h» 

IQ 

°l 

<D 

tv 

CN 

°i  ^ 

i 

cn 

I- 

a? 

co" 

CN 

of 

co" 

CO 

IO 

vo" 

V" 

of 

of  CO 

8 

CO 

CO 

CO 

o 

05 

O) 

05 

CO 

iO 

co 

co 

CO  CO 

CO 

a. 

O 

CO 

CO 

CO 

r- 

r* 

0 

T 

«o 

CO  ^- 

M 

w 

OS 

CN 

CO 

O) 

TT 

CN 

OS 

I- 

CO 

OJ 

c©  0 

0 

CO 

0) 

tN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

O* 

CN 

CN 

co  co 

CO 

n^NcocoTj'h.TfcoOflO 
^cocoi-toscocNor-cso 
os^co  x^o  ^  O  r-  cs^o^co^  — 

-*f  CO  rS  t-^  rS  U$        rr  rf 

CNCNT—  t^»OOSCSCNCN© 
O  ^  V  H  a  CO  W  O)^       w  n 

cT  rf  ^  of  'f  cwi^otrfofos* 
»oco^c©cocovo»ovot^oo 


00  cs  r>»  10 

OS  »0  CN  00  CN  — 1 

— <  10^  t^-  co^  os^ 

CO  rr  co  wT  00" 
00  ^  — <  <3*  to 
00^  CO^  CN^       (»  CN^ 

co  co"  <o 

-  to  c>  us 


•     I     I     I    t     •     I     I     I     •     I     I     I     I     •     I  • 


I     •     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     I     1  • 


«OtON00O)O'-WC0^iO<ol*fl0OlOH 
CNCNC»tNCNCO0OCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOTrTj» 

coaocococococococococococococoxoo 


Rep.  No.  669. 


171 


This  subject  has  been  referred  to  in  a  previous  part  of  this  report,  and  a 
comparison  drawn  between  the  revenue  and  expenditures  of  1S25  and 

1840,  together  with  some  details  of  the  number  of  officers  employed  at  va- 
rious periods,  and  the  amount  of  imports  and  exports  for  three  stated  years  \ 
one  from  the  collectorship  of  Jonathan  Thompson,  one  from  that  of  Samuel 
Swartwout,  and  the  other  from  the  term  of  office  of  Jesse  Hoyt.  But, 
since  Mr.  Curtis  has  selected  for  his  purposes  the  years  1829  and  1841,  it 
has  been  considered  proper  to  a  clear  understanding  of  this  whole  subject 
of  expenditures,  and  the  causes  of  their  increase,  if  any,  to  exhibit  the  above 
general  statement  for  each  year,  during  the  whole  period  from  1825  to 

1841,  covering  the  administrations  of  Presidents  Adams,  Jackson,  and  Van 
Buren,  and  the  first  year  of  the  administration  of  President  Tyler. 

The  average  expense  of  collection  from  1S25  to  1841  has  already  been 
given,  on  the  actual  amount  of  revenue  received  at  the  custom-house. 
During  the  administration  of  President  Adams,  the  average  was  1.42  pr.  cU 
Do.  do.  do.       Jackson,        do.  2.67  do. 

Do.  do.  do.       Van  Buren,    do.  5.20  do* 

Do.  do.  do.       Tyler,  for  his  first  year    5.54  do. 

But,  to  form  a  more  correct  estimate  of  the  labor  and  clerk  hire  necessa- 
ry to  discharge  the  duties  incumbent  on  the  collector,  for  these  several  peri- 
ods, the  gross  amount  of  imports  and  exports,  in  value,  is  given  under  each 
administration,  together  with  the  expenses,  as  compared  with  such  gross 
amount,  being  the  nearest  approach  to  the  quantity  of  labor  and  the  num- 
ber of  officers  required  at  the  custom-house. 

Under  Mr.  Adams's  administration,  the  gross  amount  of  imports  and  ex- 
ports was  as  follows : 

Imports      -  -  -  -  -  -  -  $165,312,485 

Exports     -------  100,219,03a 

Total        -  -  265,531,515 


Expenses  on  the  whole, .29  per  cent.;  being  less  than  one-third  of  one 
per  cent. 

Under  the  administration  of  President  Jackson,  including  one  year  of  the 
term  of  Mr.  Van  Buren  : 

Imports      -------  $586,233,434 

Exports     -------  211,157,094 

Total    -  -  797,390,528 


Expenses  on  the  whole  .425  per  cent 

Under  three  years  of  the  administration  of  President  Van  Buren,  and 
during  Mr  Hoyt's  term  of  office  : 

Imports     -------  #231,139,340> 

Exports     -------  89,030.941 

Total    -  -      32o71 70,281 


At  an  expense,  on  the  whole,  of  .52  per  cent. 

Under  the  first  year  of  the  administration  of  President  Tyler  : 
Imports  #75,266,015 
Exports     -------  30,731,519 

Total    -  -  105,999,534 


At  an  expense,  on  the  whole,  of  .57  per  cent. 


172 


Rep.  No.  669. 


The  following  table  will  show — 

1st.  The  aggregate  expense  on  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  actually 
received  into  the  custom-house,  at  the  periods  above  referred  to. 

2d.  The  expense,  estimated  by  the  amount  of  imports,  at  the  same  pe- 
riods. 

3d.  The  expense,  estimated  by  the  amount  of  exports. 
4th.  The  total  expense  on  imports  and  exports. 


Names  of  the  collectors,  from  the  years 
1825  to  1841,  inclusive. 


Jonathan  Thompson,  from  the 

year  1825  to  1828,  inclusive. 
Samuel  Swartwout,  from  the 

year  1829  to  1837,  inclusive. 
Jesse  Hoyt,  from  the  year  1838 

to  1S40,  inclusive. 
Edward  Curtis,  for  the  year 

1841. 


*p  s 


o  .2 


Per  cent. 


1.43 
2.67 
5.20 
5.54 


Cm  C 


c  5 


£.2 


o  0> 

a  co 


Per  cent. 


.475 
.58 
.72 
.80 


c  » 
a.  S 


Per  cent. 


.77 
1.49 
1.86 
1.95 


P 


Per  cent. 


.29 
.42 
.51 
.57 


From  the  foregoing  detailed  statements  it  is  manifest  that  during  the 
past  year,  since  the  appointment  of  Edward  Curtis  collector  of  the  poit  of 
New  York,  there  has  been  a  great  increase  of  expense  at  the  custom-house, 
over  the  three  preceding  collectors,  not  excepting  the  wanton  extravagance 
of  Jesse  Hoyt.  The  various  views  taken  meet  all  the  contingencies  on 
which  Mr.  Curtis  relies  to  justify  the  large  amount  expended  by  him  since 
he  came  into  office.  On  the  revenue  actually  collected,  his  expenses  exceed 
the  average  of  Jonathan  Thompson  four  hundred  and  eleven  hundredths 
per  cent.,  and  the  average  of  Samuel  Swartwout  two  hundred  and  eighty- 
seven  hundredths  per  cent.  Jesse  Hoyt  approaches  nearer  to  Mr.  Curtis 
than  either  of  his  predecessors,  the  average  between  the  two  being  only 
thirty-four  hundredths  per  cent.,  in  which  Mr.  Curtis  holds  the  highest 
number.  Estimating  the  expenses  by  the  importations,  the  average  of 
Jonathan  Thompson  was  forty-seven  hundredths  per  cent,  on  the  whole 
amount  imported,  while  he  was  collector.  The  average,  on  the  same  basis 
of  Samuel  Swartwout,  was  fifty-eight  hundredths  per  cent. ;  of  Jesse  Hoyt, 
for  the  three  years  of  his  term  of  service,  seventy-two  hundredths  per  cent.; 
and  of  Edward  Curtis,  for  his  first  year,  eighty  hundredths  per  cent.  On 
the  exports  for  the  same  period,  the  average  expense  is  estimated  as  fol- 
lows : 

Jonathan  Thompson  -  -  -  -     .77  percent. 

Samuel  Swartwout  -  -  -  -  -   1.49  " 

Jesse  Hoyt-  -  -  -  -  -  -   1.86  " 

Edward  Curtis       ------   1.95  " 


Rep.  No.  669. 


175 


The  average  on  imports  and  exports,  taken  together,  bear  about  the  same 
relation  between  the  several  collectors  as  the  imports  and  exports,  taken 
separately,  placing  Mr.  Curtis  in  every  instance  ahead  of  his  predecessors. 
Eight  years  of  the  time  included  in  the  several  estimates  were  anterior  to 
the  passage  of  the  compromise  act,  by  which  the  list  of  free  goods  was  in- 
creased. Nine  years  covered  by  these  estimates  were  subsequent  to  the 
compromise  act  ;  and  therefore,  whether  revenue,  importations,  exporta- 
tions,  or  the  increased  labor  and  clerk  hire  under  the  new  system,  be  taken 
as  the  standard  by  which  to  test  the  economy  of  the  custom-house  expen- 
ditures, Mr.  Curtis  stands  convicted  of  having  practised  wasteful  extrava- 
gance in  a  greater  degree  than  either  of  his  predecessors  in  office.  He  has 
had  the  benefit  of  all  the  calculations,  statistics,  and  reasoning,  contained 
in  his  letter  of  justification  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  but  they  utterly 
fail,  on  strict  examination,  to  make  good  his  defence.  During  the  year 
1841,  while  the  commissioners  were  in  session  at  New  York,  professions 
of  economy  and  reform  were  repeatedly  made  by  the  collector,  in  his  com- 
munications to  the  board  and  his  official  letters  to  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  The  undersigned,  having  in  part  taken  these  professions  for 
granted,  came  to  the  conclusion,  at  that  time,  that  the  custom-house  expen- 
ses were  in  a  course  of  retrenchment,  and  hopes  were  entertained  that  they 
might  be  brought  back  to  the  good  old  days  of  Jonathan  Thompson.  But 
the  official  statement  of  Mr.  Curtis,  at  the  close  of  his  first  year,  puts  these 
hopes  to  flight,  and  leaves  us,  in  this  respect  at  least,  in  a  worse  condition 
than  we  were  left  by  the  late  collector,  Jesse  Hoyt. 

The  following  is  the  average  number  of  officers,  of  every  class,  employed 
in  the  collection  of  the  revenue  at  the  above-mentioned  periods  : 
1st.  Jonathan  Thompson's  average  -  -  -  164 

2d.  Samuel  Swartwout's  average  -  -  -  319 

3d.  Jesse  Hoyt's  average  -  460 

4th.  Edward  Curtis's  (one  year)  average  -  470 

From  the  foregoing  data  it  appears  that  the  great  excess  of  expenditure 
in  the  collection  of  the  revenue  at  tfce  port  of  New  York  for  the  year  1.841,. 
over  the  preceding  years,  commencing  with  the  year  1825,  is  as  follows  : 


cess  of  expenditures  in 

1841  exceeded  those  of  1825 

$386,963 

74 

Do 

do 

do 

1826 

403,937 

40 

Do 

do 

do 

1827 

420,045 

73 

Do 

do 

do 

1S28 

403,827 

85 

Do 

do 

do 

1S29 

385,904 

54 

Do 

do 

do 

1830 

303,369 

55 

Do 

do 

do 

1831 

221,515 

27 

Do 

do 

do 

1832 

189,644 

33 

Do 

do 

do 

1833 

168,934 

32 

Do 

do 

do 

1834 

232,843 

11 

Do 

do 

do 

1835 

213,313 

86 

Do 

do 

do 

1836 

147,451 

30 

Do 

do 

do 

1837 

130,389 

65 

Do 

do 

do 

1838 

92,417 

51 

Do 

do 

do 

IS39 

4,165 

97 

Do 

do 

do 

1840 

34,606 

22 

These  excesses  speak  for  themselves,  and  need  no  comment.  Some  of 
the  causes  which  Mr.  Curtis  in  his  letter  refers  to  as  having  produced  these, 
excesses  may  be  enumerated  under  the  following  heads : 


174 


Bep.  No.  669. 


1st.  The  rent  of  storehouses  and  the  building  in  which  the  business  of 
the  custom-house  is  transacted. 

2d.  The  employment  of  night  inspectors. 

3d.  The  addition  of  seven  clerks  for  examining  invoices  and  correcting 
errors  which  may  be  discovered  in  the  extensions  and  footing  of  each  iu- 
voice,  which,  he  states,  has  been  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, but  without  any  beneficial  result  to  the  revenue,  so  far  as  the  collector 
has  set  forth  in  his  communication. 

4th.  Light-houses,  revenue  cutters,  and  revenue  boats,  on  which  he  al- 
leges that  an  unusually  large  expenditure  was  made  in  1841. 

These  seem  to  constitute  the  principal  ground  on  which  the  collector 
places  his  defence  for  the  excesses  of  expense  incurred  in  the  collection  of 
the  revenue  since  his  appointment.  Other  matters  are  enumerated  in  his 
letter  which  appear  to  be  unimportant,  but  on  which  he  has  thought  fit  to 
enlarge  for  his  own  vindication.  He  says,  in  conclusion,  "  I  respectfully 
submit  these  facts  and  observations  in  proof  of  the  correctness  of  my  opin- 
ion, that  there  is  an  impropriety  in  adopting  the  amount  of  revenue  collect- 
ed as  a  criterion  for  determining  the  cost  of  collecting  it."  This  conclusion, 
however  just  it  may  be,  is  overthrown  by  the  statistical  tables  before  fur- 
nished, which  accord  to  him  the  benefit  of  a  comparison  for  a  series  of 
years  of  imports  and  exports,  and  of  free  goods  under  the  compromise  act, 
with  the  year  1841,  in  all  of  which  he  stands  convicted,  on  either  basis,  of 
the  same  excess  of  expenditure  which  applies  to  the  amount  of  revenue 
collected.  The  collector,  in  his  comparative  statement,  leaves  an  interven- 
ing gap  of  twelve  years,  neither  of  which  is  touched  in  his  expose,  except 
the  year  1S40,  which  he  notices  apparently  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing 
an  apology  for  the  expenses  of  that  year  by  his  predecessor,  which  seem 
to  bear  a  strong  resemblance  to  his  own  in  the  succeeding  year.  It  may 
be  regarded  almost  as  a  joint  defence  of  Mr.  Hoyt  and  Mr.  Curtis,  as  the 
former  had  previously  mystified  his  expenditures  in  1S40  pretty  much  on 
the  same  grounds,  though  not  so  elaborately,  as  those  taken  by  his  succes- 
sor, in  vindication  of  both  years.  The  period  between  the  passage  of  the 
compromise  act  in  1833,  down  to  the  year  1841,  having  been  entirely  over- 
looked by  Mr.  Curtis,  with  the  above-mentioned  exception,  it  may  be  use- 
ful to  select  some  of  these  years  in  which  the  largest  amount  of  importa- 
tions were  made  into  the  port  of  New  York.  The  true  test  of  the  necessity 
of  the  enormous  expenses  incurred  by  Mr.  Curtis  in  1841  is  not  in  a  com- 
parison  between  that  year  and  1829,  but  it  must  be  found  in  those  years 
which  in  all  respects  were  subject  to  the  same  laws  which  existed  in  1841. 1 
The  year  1S36  was  the  largest  year  of  importations  of  foreign  merchandise 
into  the  port  of  New  York  which  has  ever  occurred  since  the  foundation  of 
the  Government,  amounting,  as  before  stated,  in  value  to  $1 1S,8S6,194.  The 
list  of  free  articles  was  the  same  in  that  year  as  in  1841,  with  the  exception  of 
a  short  period  of  the  latter  year;  and  the  relative  amount  of  that  class  of  goods, 
with  the  aggregate  importations  of  the  year,  are  presumed  to  be  about  the  1 
same  as  iu  other  years  under  the  same  system.  The  amount  of  tonnage 
entered  from  foreign  ports  was  556,730  tons,  and  the  amount  of  tonnage 
cleared  for  foreign  ports  in  the  same  year  was  404,9575  tons,  being  the 
greatest  amount  of  tonnage  entered  and  cleared  from  the  port  of  New  York 
in  any  one  year,  except  the  year  1839,  when  it  was  exceeded  only  by  a 
small  amount.  The  number  of  entries,  it  is  fair  to  presume,  corresponded 
with  the  amount  of  importations,  as  also  the  clerk  hire  and  labor  required 
at  the  custom-house.  The  excess  of  revenue  collected  in  that  year  over  the 


Rep.  No.  669. 


175 


year  1841  was  $6, 342,046  90,  and  the  excess  of  expenses  of  collection  in 
the  year  1S41  over  the  year  1836  was,  as  above  slated,  $147,451  30.  How 
can  Mr.  Curtis  account  lor  this  discrepancy,  which  took  place  under  the  op- 
eration of  the  same  system  of  revenue  laws,  in  all  respects  whatever?  Why 
has  it  cost  the  Government  more  money  to  collect  less  than  eleven  millions 
of  dollars  in  1S41  than  was  expended  in  the  collection  of  more  than  sev- 
enteen millions  in  1S36?  These  are  pi -in  questions,  aud  they  require  a 
satisfactory  a  nswer.  Without  entering  into  specifications  of  the  succeeding 
years,  down  to  the  year  1S41,  the  views  taken  of  the  year  1836  will  apply 
to  the  whole  of  these  years,  as  will  be  seen  by  the  foregoing  table  of  ex- 
cesses. The  year  1S41,  when  reform  and  economy  were  expected,  stands 
at  the  head  of  the  list,  and  furnishes  a  fair  ground  on  which  Mr.  Hoytmay 
claim  exemption  from  all  censure  for  the  most  extravagant  year  of  his  ad- 
ministration of  the  custom  house.  In  the  report  of  expenditures  made  by 
Mr.  Curtis  to  the  Treasury  Department  are  the  following  items  for  the 
year  1841  : 

1st.  Light-houses  ...  -  -       $28,875  69 

2d.  Revenue  cutters  -----  40,433  27 
3d.  Revenue  boats  -  -    •  -  -         12,2S4  75 


Making  an  aggregate,  in  one  year,  on  these  three  items    -        81,593  71 

A  detailed  report  on  these  subjects  will  be  made  separately,  and  there- 
fore it  is  deemed  unnecessary  to  comment  on  the  items  above  specified. 
The  undersigned  has  aire  <dy  adverted  to  the  night  watch,  as  a  class  of  of- 
ficers that  might  well  be  dispensed  with,  except  so  many  of  them  as  should 
be  required  to  guard  the  public  stores  against  fire;  and  to  these  might  be 
added  the  number  usually  employed  in  boarding  vessels  arriving  in  port 
during  the  night  time,  aud  to  watch  merchandise  that  may  be  out,  entitled 
to  debenture.  The  number  assigned  to  these  duties,  the  surveyor  of  the 
port  states  to  be  seven.  Mr.  Curtis  has  in  his  employment,  of  this  class  of 
officers,  eighty-one — being  nine  more  than  Mr.  Hoyt  employed  in  1840. 
From  the  year  1833,  when  the  nig'it  inspectors  were  fully  organized,  to 
the  year  1838,  the  number  of  the  night  watch  varied  from  thirty-seven  to 
thirty-four.  In  that  year  they  were  raised  by  Mr.  Hoyt  to  the  number  of 
seventy-three,  and  the  succeeding  year  reduced  to  sixty-two.  These  were 
years  of  large  importations;  and  it  is  worthy  of  inquiry,  why  the  number 
is  now  augmented  to  eighty-one,  without  a  corresponding  augmentation  of 
duty  required  of  them.  There  might  be  an  annual  saving,  by  diminishing 
the  number  of  these  officers,  wit  bom  detriment  to  the  public  service,  of  at 
least  $40,000.  They  serve  more  to  swell  the  patronage  of  the  collector,  if 
their  great  increase  was  not  originally  designed  for  this  purpose,  than  to 
protect  the  revenue  from  frauds  or  evasions.  The  number  of  other  inspect- 
ors, who  receive  a  s  .lary  of  more  than  $1,000  each  per  annum,  so  far  ex- 
ceeds the  number  employed  in  the  most  prosperous  years  of  commerce, 
between  the  years  1825  and  1837,  that  the  cause  or  causes  of  the  increase 
might  well  constitute  a  subject  of  particular  inquiry  by  the  head  of  the 
Treasury  Department.  It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  a  reduction  of  the 
number  of  custom-house  officers  of  any  class  will  be  recommended  by  the 
collector.  He  seems  rather  inclined  to  increase  than  diminish  the  number 
of  his  subordinates. 

These  views  of  the  affairs  of  the  custom-house,  under  the  present  col- 
lector, are  submitted,  as  comprising  most  of  the  prominent  points  to  which 


176 


Rep.  No.  669. 


the  investigations  of  the  commissioners  were  extended.    The  difficulty  of 
obtaining  testimony  from  subordinate  custom-house  officers,  implicating 
the  collector,  at  whose  will  they  respectively  held  their  appointments,  was 
seen  and  felt,  at  a  very  ear  ly  day  alter  the  first  commission  commenced 
its  labors.    A  guarantee  against  their  removal  from  office,  if  they  testified 
truly  to  all  the v  knew,  was  asked,  and  given  by  the  President.  Several 
who  testified  under  this  guarantee  were  removed  by  the  collector,  and 
have  not  yet  been  restored.    The  undersigned  anticipated  the  failure  to 
obtain  satisfactory  answers  to  questions  which  might  be  put  to  subordinate 
officers  of  the  customs,  when  such  answers  might  implicate  the  collector, 
and  so  advised  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.    He  asked  that  the  hands 
of  the  commissioners  might  be  strengthened  on  this  point,  but,  in  the  ab- 
sence of  any  authority  to  protect  this  class  of  officers  from  removal,  it 
became  very  soon  evident  that  they  would  not  testify  to  any  matter  which 
would  put  at  hazard  their  longer  continuance  in  office.    This  cause  ope- 
rated to  prevent  a  more  full  and  satisfactory  exposition  of  the  whole  official 
conduct  of  the  collector.    The  cashier  of  the  custom-house,  a  most  im- 
portant officer,  who  must  of  necessity  be  fully  informed  of  all  the  cash 
transactions  of  the  collector-,  positively  refused,  in  presence  of  the  com- 
missioners, and  in  the  most  insulting  manner,  to  answer  certain  questions 
which  were  propounded  to  him.    An  assistant  appraiser,  whose  answers 
to  interr  ogatories  sent  to  him  by  the  commissioners,  were  deemed  evasive 
and  insufficient  by  a  member  of  the  board,  refused  to  give  further  answers, 
and,  in  doing  so,  addressed  an  insolent  letter  to  the  commissioner,  who 
returned  his  first  answers  to  be  perfected,  which  letter  is  now  on  file  in 
the  Treasury  Department,  as  it  was  officially  made  known  to  the  Secre- 
tary.   These  officers  have  received  no  reprimand  for  thus  refusing  to 
answer  questions,  but  are  now  retained  in  office.    The  above  facts  are 
referred  to  in  connexion  with  other  circumstances,  to  draw  the  attention 
of  the  Government  to  the  condition  in  which  the  commissioners  were 
placed,  while  investigating  or  attempting  to  investigate  the  actings  and 
doings  of  the  present  collector.    The  exposition,  however,  before  given, 
is  derived  from  authentic  official  correspondence,  vouchers,  and  testimony, 
appended  to  this  report,  and  which  cannot  be  contradicted.    It  remains 
for  the  decision  of  the  proper  department  of  the  Gover  nment,  whether 
the  collection  of  the  public  revenue  at  the  port  of  New  York,  constituting 
more  than  one-half  the  income  of  the  Gevernment  from  imposts,  can  be 
safely  intrusted  to  the  present  incumbent  for  a  series  of  vears,  after  a 
candid  examination  of  his  acts,  as  disclosed  by  the  evidenceon  which  this 
report  is  founded.    The  undersigned  offers  no  opinion  on  this  subject,  but 
having  given  the  facts  and  statistical  tables  above  detailed,  considers'  his 
duty  to  the  President  and  to  the  country  as  having  been  fully  and  faith- 
fully discharged.    It  is,  however,  worthy  of  the  consideration  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive, whether  the  immense  patronage  of  the  collector  of  this  great 
emporium  of  American  commerce,  and  the  millions  of  public  money  re- 
ceived at  the  custom-house,  ought  to  be  confided,  at  any  time  to  an  ardent 
active  partisan,  and  aspirant  for  political  power?    The  past  history  of 
this  department,  for  the  collection  of  the  revenues  of  the  country,  is  full 
of  admonitions  on  this  subject,  and  it  would  seem  to  recommend  caution 
and  circumspection  in  the  selection  of  this  high  and  responsible  officer  of 
the  Government ;  especially,  to  avoid  the  ruinous  consequences  of  con- 
verting this  money  and  patronage  into  political  capital,  for  the  benefit  of 
the  incumbent  and  of  the  dominant  party,  from  whom  he  holds  his  ap- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


177 


pointmeht.  These  suggestions  are  thrown  out,  without  particular  reference 
to  any  one,  but  as  applicable  to  a  general  rule  of  action  for  the  better  se- 
curity of  the  public  revenue  in  future. 

The  expense  incurred  by  the  Government,  in  suits  and  prosecutions  for 
the  collection  of  revenue  bonds,  and  for  violations,  or  alleged  violations, 
of  the  revenue  laws,  in  the  district  court  of  the  United  States  for  the 
southern  distiict  of  New  York,  and  in  the  circuit  court  for  that  district, 
being  intimately  connected  with  the  affairs  of  the  New  York  custom- 
house, deserves  the  particular  attention  of  the  head  of  the  Treasury  De- 
partment and  of  the  National  Legislature.  The  accounts  of  Mr.  Price,, 
the  immediate  predecessor  of  Mr.  Butler,  late  district  attorney,  having 
been  rendered  at  the  Department,  no  special  examination  was  made  into 
the  bills  of  costs  which  accrued  during  his  continuance  in  office.  Mr.  But- 
ler took  the  oath  of  office,  as  district  attorney,  on  the  1 2th  day  of  December, 
1838.  (  See  Appendix  D  D. )  On  the  same  day  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  collector,  ad- 
dressed a  letter  to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  informing  him  of  the  fact,  to 
which  he  adds  :  "  But  I  am  amused  with  Mr.  Butler  ;  he  is  so  terrified  at  the 
iniquity  of  the  age  that  he  has  made  up  his  mind  not  to  receive  a  dollar 
of  the  public  money,  but  he  intends  to  make  me  receive  all  ;  and  I  am 
quite  apprehensive  that  he  will  not  even  receive  his  own  costs.  I  am  quite 
sure  he  will  not  receive  half  as  much  as  he  will  be  entitled  to.  I  shall 
lecture  him  on  this  subject,  as  well  with  reference  to  his  own  benefit  as 
the  public  interests."  Subsequent  events,  connected  with  the  fees  and 
emoluments  of  the  district  attorney,  will  evince  how  very  soon  Mr.  Butler 
overcame  the  modesty  ascribed  to  him  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  may  serve  to 
demonstrate  the  powerful  influence  of  the  promised  lectures  of  the  col- 
lector, to  produce  that  desirable  result.  Mr.  Hoyt  was  doubtless  well 
qualified  to  lecture  on  such  a  subject,  and  to  remove  the  scruples  of  the 
district  attorney,  so  as,  at  least,  to  induce  him  to  receive  u  one-half  much 
as  he  was  entitled  to."  If  Mr.  Butler  was  terrified  at  the  "  iniquity  of 
the  age,"  he  had  a  skilful  counsellor  in  the  collector  to  reconcile  him  to 
these  iniquities  in  his  new  position,  and  to  teach  him  the  advantages  of 
fortitude  in  the  business  of  filling  his  own  pockets  out  of  the  public  coffers. 
The  success  which  attended  the  efforts  of  the  collector  on  the  mind  of  the 
district  attorney,  in  reconciling  him  to  the  receipt  of  a  large  income,  in- 
stead of  being  contented  with  u  his  own  costs,"  is  remarkable,  as  demon- 
strated in  the  following  summary  of  the  moneys  drawn  by  him  from  time 
to  time  out  of  the  public  Treasury. 

In  the  first  year  of  Mr.  Butler's  official  term,  there  was  paid  to  him., 
by  the  collector,  the  following  sums  : 

1st  quarter  of  1839  -  $2,04179 

2d           do  ....  5?580  06 

3d           do  ....  55287  22 

4th          do  ...           .  5?076  89 


Total  for  one  year     -  -     18,235  46 

In  the  succeeding  year,  1840,  the  receipts  of  Mr.  Butler,  at  the  custom- 
house, were  as  follows  : 


$10,966  34 
12.206  66 


178  Rep.  No.  669. 

3d  quarter  -----  $2,448  94 
4th      do     -  -  -  -  -        6,588  37 


32,210  31 

In  1841,  1st  quarter,  up  to  March  2,  paid  by  Hoyt  -  4,987  21 
Subsequent  payments  by  Morgan  in  the  same  quarter  1,703  94 
On  the  28th  of  March,  same  quarter,  paid  by  Edward 

Curtis     ------        5,553  58 


Grand  total  paid  to  Mr.  Butler  for  two  years  and  four- 
months     -  -  -  -  -      62,690  50 


This  statement,  drawn  from  the  official  returns,  of  the 
collector,  exhibits  an  annual  income  to  the  district 
attorney,  while  he  remained  in  office,  of  -  -    $26,868  50 

This  was  certainly  a  very  comfortable  income  for  an  officer  of  the  Gov- 
ernment who,  at  the  time  he  entered  on  the  duties  of  his  office,  was  ter- 
rified at  the  u  iniquity  of  the  age,"'  and  of  whom  Mr.  Hoyt  says  :  u  I  am 
quite  apprehensive  that  he  will  not  even  receive  his  own  costs  ;  I  am 
quite  apprehensive  he  will  not  receive  half  as  much  as  he  is  entitled  to." 
This  wonderful  revolution  in  the  views  of  the  district  attorney,  by  which 
he  became  reconciled  to  receive  something  over  one-half  of  what  he  was 
entitled  to,  was,  no  doubt,  achieved  by  the  powerful  influence  of  the  lec- 
tures of  Mr.  Hoyt.    It  could  not  justly  be  ascribed  to  any  other  cause. 

But  it  will  be  seen  that  this  large  income  from  the  Treasury  of  the 
United  States  constitutes  only  a  moiety  of  the  income  of  Mr.  Butler 
while  he  remained  in  office  as  district  attorney.    The  costs  taxed  on  de- 
fendants in  cases  of  convictions  in  prosecutions  for  breaches  of  the  rev- 
enue laws,  judgments  by  default  in  seizure  cases  undefended,  and  suits  on 
revenue  bonds,  where  the  defendants  were  solvent,  and  where  money 
was  paid  into  court  by  stipulation  out  of  court  of  the  value  of  goods  li- 
belled, are  not  included  in  the  bills  charged  to  the  Government  and  paid 
by  the  collector  according  to  the  above  statement.    The  sums  drawn  from 
these  sources  by  the  district  attorney  are  not  fully  known,  as  no  official 
data  have  been  furnished  to  the  commissioners,  on  which  an  estimate  of 
the  entire  amount  could  be  formed.    It  must,  however,  have  been  very 
large,  considering  the  vast  amount  of  business  of  these  classes  which 
passed  through  the  courts,  and  enured  to  the  benefit  of  the  district  attor- 
ney and  other  officers  of  the  court. 

In  the  compromise  cases  heretofore  noticed,  in  most  of  which  no  suits 
had  been  brought  or  process  served,  or  the  cases  placed  on  the  docket 
for  trial,  Mr.  Butler  exacted  from  the  defendants  or  importing  merchants, 
as  a  condition  of  these  compromises,  various  sums,  under  the  designation 
of  counsel  fees,  amounting,  in  the  whole,  to  -  -       $875  00 

In  the  case  of  Lachaise  &  Fouche,  which  was  settled  by  com- 
promise, he  taxed  the  defendants  for  counsel  fees  and 
taxed  costs         -  -  -  -  -  -         675  62 

In  cases  of  condemned  goods  by  default,  Mr.  Butler  received 

from  the  proceeds  of  the  goods  -  882  45 


Amounting,  in  the  whole,  to 


2,433  07 


Rep.  No.  669.  179 

On  what  principle  of  law  or  practice  the  district  attorney  is  justifiable 
in  charging  counsel  fees  to  the  defendants,  especially  in  cases  which  have 
not  been  brought  to  trial  or  docketed,  remains  to  be  explained,  as  no  such 
practice  has  existed,  at  any  time,  in  the  courts  of  New  York,  State  or 
Federal.  Several  professional  gentlemen  were  examined  on  this  point, 
and  among  them  Mr.  Price,  the  former  district  attorney,  none  of  whom 
had  ever  before  heard  of  such  a  practice.  There  is  certainly  no  law, 
statute  or  common,  on  which  to  justify  it. 

The  following  extract  from  the  deposition  of  Jonathan  Miller,  a  re- 
spectable counsellor  in  the  courts  of  New  York,  and  who  was  of  counsel 
in  most  of  the  compromise  cases,  is  given,  to  show  what  the  practice  of  the 
courts  has  been  on  this  subject.  His  opinion,  given  under  oath,  is  in  ac- 
cordance with  that  of  the  other  counsel  examined  by  the  commissioners. 

Question  10.  u  What  is  the  fee  allowed  by  law  to  a  district  attorney,  in 
cases  arising  under  a  breach  of  the  revenue  laws  ?  Please  state  by  what 
authority  of  law  or  practice  Benjamin  F.  Butler,  district  attorney  of  the 
United  States,  demanded  of  John  Taylor,  jr.,  a  fee  of  $500,  in  his  char- 
acter of  district  attorney,  in  a  case  not  actually  pending  in  court,  the  writ 
not  having  been  served.  And  state,  also,  what  sums  were  demanded 
tinder  the  compromises  made  with  other  merchants  for  whom  you  acted 
as  counsel,  and  whether  the  payment  of  such  fees  as  said  district  attorney 
demanded  was  not  made  a  condition  of  his  assent  to  the  compromises  pro- 
posed and  agreed  to  by  the  collector. 

To  which  the  following  answer  was  given: 

Answer  to  question  10.  ul  must  beg  leave  to  refer  to  the  law,  as  to  the 
fee  allowed  in  cases  arising  under  the  breach  of  the  revenue  laws.    I  do 
not  know  of  any  authority  of  law  or  practice,  by  which  the  $500  was  de- 
manded of  John  Taylor,  jr.,  as  a  fee.    It  was  not  demanded  by  Mr.  But- 
ler, but  by  Mr.  Hoyt  for  him,  as  before  stated  ;  nor  did  Mr.  Butler,  to  my 
knowledge,  ever  demand  the  payment  of  such  fees,  or  any  fees,  as  district 
attorney,  as  a  condition  of  his  assent  to  any  compromise  ;  but  they  were 
conditions  made  by  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  the  sums  named  by  him,  which  in  my 
judgment  were  extravagantly  high." 

Whether  it  required  a  "  lecture"  from  Mr.  Hoyt  to  induce  Mr.  Butler 
to  receive  these  fees,  which  he  had  exacted  from  the  importing  merchants 
without  the  authority  of  law,  must  be  left  to  inference  ;  but  it  is  certain 
that  he  did  receive  them,  and  passed  official  receipts  for  the  same.  The 
enormity  of  the  bills  of  cost  rendered  against  the  Government  by  the  dis- 
trict attorney,  and  other  officers  of  the  court,  maybe  seen  by  a  few  exam- 
ples, which  are  selected  from  the  great  mass  of  others  of  a  similar  character. 
In  18S9,  at  the  June  term  of  the  district  court,  the  costs  on  one 
motion  for  judgments  against  Lee,  Babcock,  &  Co.,  on  26 
bonds,  amounted  to     -----        $1,860  49 

On  the  25th  of  the  same  month,  on  one  motion  for  judgments 

against  Gibson,  Post,  &  Gibson,  on  44  bonds    -  -       -    1,892  88 

On  the  21st  of  September  of  the  same  year,  on  one  motion  for 

judgments  against  Henry  B.  Hart,  on  8  bonds  -  -       -      847  52 

On  the  9th  of  October,  one  motion,  on  8  bonds,  against  Gib- 
son, Post,  &  Gibson    -  -  -  -  -       -      554  64 

On  the  3d  of  March,  1840,  one  motion  against  B.  F.  Lee  &  Co., 

on  26  bonds  ......  2,514  46 


180 


Rep.  No.  669. 


On  the  27th  of  February,  1841,  one  motion  against  the  same 

house,  on  46  bonds      -  -  -  -  -    -    $3,338  20 

On  the  8th  of  April,  1840,  one  motion  against  Francis  Bacon, 

David  N.  Lord,  and  Edwin  Lord,  on  37  bonds  -       -  3,197  85 

On  the  same  day,  one  motion  against  Lord  &  Pearson,  on  16 

bonds  1,324  ia 

On  the  5th  of  May  of  the  same  year,  one  motion  against  Nelson 

J.  Elliot  and  Reuben  Elliot,  number  of  bonds  not  named    -    1,276  17 
Without  going  further  into  the  enumeration,  it  appears  that,  on 
14  motions  for  judgments,  on  296  bonds,  the  amount  of  costs 
charged  to  the  Government  is  23,087  49 

Not  one  dollar  of  which  was  collected  from  the  defendants.  In  rela- 
tion to  a  portion  of  these  bonds,  a  correspondence  took  place  between  the 
district  attorney  and  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury.  An  extract  is  given 
below  from  the  letter  of  Mr.  Butler  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  which  recognises  the 
instructions  of  the  Solicitor  on  the  subject,  and  asks  information  from  the 
collector  relative  to  the  solvency  of  the  obligors  in  these  bonds.  Mr. 
Butler  says  : 

"  United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

"  New  York,  March  13,  1840. 
61  Sir  :  I  have  received  from  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  a  communica- 
tion on  the  subject  of  the  practice  which,  as  you  are  aware,  has  always 
existed  in  this  district,  of  bringing  separate  suits  on  custom-house  bonds, 
handed  over  for  collection  at  the  same  time,  in  which  he  instructs  me  as 
follows  :  1  From  the  general  convenience  that  results  from  several  suitsy 
I  am  willing  that  you  should  continue  to  proceed  according  to  the  usages 
of  the  office,  with  this  modification,  that,  when  you  have  reason  to  believe 
that  the  sum  due  upon  several  bonds,  which  may  be  joined  in  one  suit, 
together  with  the  costs,  will  not  be  collected,  you  will  join  them  in  one 
suit,  unless  there  be  some  good  reason  to  the  contrary,  so  that  the  cost 
bills  may  be  reduced  as  much  as  possible.5  Jn  order  to  enable  me  to 
apply  this  instruction  to  the  cases  of  the  extended  bonds  of  Nelson  J. 
Elliott  &  Co.,  David  N.  Lord,  and  Edwin  Lord  &  Co.,  recently  handed 
over  to  suit,  I  beg  leave,  in  the  absence  of  any  information  in  my  own 
possession  on  the  subject,  to  inquire  of  you  whether  these  cases,  or  any 
of  them,  in  your  opinion,  come  within  the  rule  stated  by  the  Solicitor. " 

To  this  letter  Mr.  Hoyt  replied  :  "  In  answer  to  this  inquiry,  I  have  to 
state  that,  from  my  know  ledge  of  the  affairs  of  the  firms  referred  to,  I  en- 
tertain no  doubt  that  every  dollar  of  their  indebtedness  to  the  United 
States,  and  all  expenses  thereon,  will  be  collected."    Without  comment 
on  the  moral  rule  adopted  by  the  Solicitor,  and  recommended  to  the  dis- 
trict attorney,  to  multiply  suits  for  his  own  emolument,  and  for  the  benefit 
of  the  clerk  and  marshal,  by  an  accumulation  of  costs,  provided  the  debt- 
ors to  the  Government  are  solvent,  otherwise  to  limit  himself  to  one  suit 
on  all  bonds  against  the  same  person  or  firm,  so  as  to  lessen  the  costs 
against  the  Government,  it  will  suffice  to  remark,  that  the  assurances  given 
by  the  collector  to  the  district  attorney,  in  this  case,  were  utterly  without 
foundation,  as  each  and  all  of  the  defendants  proved  insolvent,  and  the 
costs  taxed  and  paid  by  the  Government,  amounting  to  near  $6,000,  has 
not  been  collected  from  the  defendants,  and  was  a  clear  loss  to  the  Treas- 
ury.   The  privilege  granted  by  the  Solicitor  to  Mr.  Butler,  to  bring  sep- 


Bep.  No.  669.  181 

arate  suits  on  revenue  bonds,  and  thereby  increase  the  amount  of  his  fees, 
was  freely  used,  and  resulted  in  the  necessity  of  large  advances  from  the 
Treasury  to  pay  costs  incurred  in  this  manner  against  insolvent  debtors. 

The  practice  of  the  collector,  which  has  been  before  referred  to,  of 
making  seizures,  with  or  without  cause,  of  small  parcels  of  goods,  which, 
in  almost  every  case  were  abandoned  by  the  owners,  as  the  cost  of  claim- 
ing them  in  court  would  be  greater  than  the  value  of  the  goods  seized, 
has  been  productive  of  benefit  only  to  the  officers  of  the  customs  and  of 
the  courts,  while  the  Government  has.  been  compelled,  in  some  cases,  to 
pay  bills  of  costs  transcending  in  amount  the  proceeds  of  the  goods  con- 
demned. The  following  table  will  show  the  result  of  fourteen  cases  where 
judgment  was  entered  by  default ;  which  is  given  as  a  specimen  of  the 
trifling  sum  gained  by  the  Government  in  such  prosecutions,  even  where 
the  United  States  succeed  in  obtaining  a  verdict  of  condemnation  against 
the  goods,  or  judgment  is  taken  by  default : 


i, 


No.  of  suits. 

Amount 

Marshal's 

fees. 

Clerk's 

ees. 

District 

Total  of  fees. 

collected. 

attorney's 

fees. 

1st 

$400 

62 

$82 

93 

$55 

40 

$49 

43 

$187  76 

2d 

185 

41 

84 

31 

54 

32 

49 

43 

188  06 

3d 

108 

11 

49 

25 

55 

25 

60 

22 

164  72 

4th  - 

101 

11 

71 

06 

53 

84 

49 

43 

174  33 

5th  - 

305 

74 

81 

48 

55 

93 

50 

98 

188  39 

6th  - 

125 

58 

60 

35 

58 

19 

50 

98 

169  52 

7th  - 

69 

81 

48 

56 

57 

85 

52 

27 

158  68 

8th  - 

53 

28 

46 

53 

57 

76 

52 

27 

156  56 

9th  - 

68 

35 

59 

18 

57 

91 

53 

86 

170  95 

40th  - 

223 

31 

84 

82 

59 

87 

64 

50 

209  19 

11th  - 

26 

45 

49 

36 

58 

67 

58 

00 

166  03 

12  th  - 

366 

92 

99 

26 

60 

63 

58 

00 

217  89 

13th  - 

240 

64 

92 

88 

65 

69 

58 

94 

217  51 

14th  - 

464 

12 

128 

45 

63 

27 

57 

02 

248  74 

2,739 

45 

1,038 

42 

814 

58 

765 

33 

2,618  33 

Proportion  of  the  Government     -  -  -  $1,369  73 

Naval  officer,  surveyor,  and  collector      -  -     1,369  72 

District  attorney,  marshal,  and  clerk       -  -     2,618  33 

 $5,357  78 

Total  received  by  the  United  States        -  -  -  1,369  73 


Total  received  by  the  officers    -  -  3,988  05 


No  comparative  statement  of  the  costs  taxed  in  prosecutions  or  libels,  in 
the  district  court  of  New  York  and  other  districts,  has  been  deemed  ne- 
cessary, but  it  is  believed  that  in  no  State  of  the  Union  do  the  costs  of 
the  clerk,  marshal,  and  district  attorney,  bear  a  comparison  in  enormity 


182 


Rep.  No.  669. 


with  New  York.  Whether  these  costs,  as  taxed,  are  warranted  by  law,  or  rest 
only  on  arbitrary  usage,  it  is  assuredly  a  subject  well  worthy  of  the  consid- 
eration of  the  National  Legislature,  to  restrain  these  officers  within  more 
moderate  limits,  by  enacting  a  regular  statutory  table  of  fees,  and  thereby 
not  only  relieve  the  Government  from  these  onerous  charges,  but  redeem 
the  defendants  from  their  ruinous  operation.  It  is  for  this  purpose,  chief- 
ly, that  the  subject  has  been  introduced  into  this  report. 

A  number  of  witnesses  were  examined  by  the  commissioners  touching 
the  practice  of  the  subordinate  custom-house  officers,  which,  it  appears,  has 
prevailed  for  a  length  of  time  at  New  York,  of  receiving  extra  compensation 
for  services  rendered  by  them  in  their  official  capacity.  The  evidence 
fully  establishes  the  existence  of  such  a  practice  in  every  department  of 
the  custom-house.  But  it  would  seem  that  the  evils  to  be  apprehended 
from  this  source  are  not  to  be  found  in  the  payment  of  small  sums  or  pres- 
ents, received  for  duties  performed  out  of  the  regular  course  of  business,, 
but  in  the  consequences  which  might  result  from  the  indulgence  of  the 
practice,  leading,  as  it  does,  to  temptations  of  a  more  important  nature,  un- 
der which  the  laws  might  readily  be  evaded  for  a  suitable  pecuniary  re- 
ward paid  to  these  officers,  to  the  great  injury  of  public  morals  and  the 
revenue  of  the  country.  The  collector  was  instructed,  by  the  late  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  to  forbid  the  receipt,  by  any  custom-house  officer,  of  any 
compensation  other  than  that  allowed  by  law,  on  pain  of  removal  from  of- 
fice. It  was  understood  by  the  commissioners  that  these  instructions  had 
been  carried  into  effect,  and  the  practice  discontinued  ;  but,  from  recent 
information,  the  undersigned  is  induced  to  doubt  whether  the  object  has 
been  fully  accomplished.  It  would  certainly  require  great  watchfulness 
and  vigilance  on  the  part  of  the  collector  to  suppress  a  usage  of  such  long 
standing,  and  which,  in  its  commencement,  was  deemed  to  be  innocent. 
The  temptation  can  only  be  effectually  removed  by  a  moderate  increase 
of  the  salaries  of  these  officers,  and  by  abolishing  fees  altogether,  which 
are  collected  at  present  in  a  very  loose  manner,  each  officer  receiving  his 
own  fees,  and  accounting  for.  them  in  his  own  way  to  the  cashier,  with- 
out the  proper  means  of  detection  if  he  should  make  a  fraudulent  return  to 
the  cashier.  The  amount  of  these  fees  could  be  supplied  by  increased 
duties  on  importations,  or  specific  charges  on  each  vessel  arriving  fiom  a 
foreign  port.  These  suggestions  are  respectfully  submitted  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

The  operation  of  the  system  of  debentures,  as  it  now  exists  under  the 
revenue  laws,  has  been  found  to  be  a  fruitful  source  of  frauds  on  the  rev- 
enue. The  means  through  which  such  frauds  may  be  perpetrated  are 
fully  disclosed  by  the  evidence  of  enlightened  merchants,  taken  before  the 
commissioners.  The  losses  sustained  by  the  Government  on  the  export- 
ation of  refined  sugars,  and  the  repayment  of  a  greater  amount  of  duties 
than  was  paid  by  the  importer  into  the  Treasury,  having  been  seen  and 
felt  for  a  series  of  years,  attracted  the  attention  of  Congress  at  their  last 
session,  and  the  laws  were  so  modified  as  to  remove  the  evil  complained  of. 
But  in  respect  to  all  other  classes  of  merchandise  intended  for  exportation, 
the  system  of  opening  the  boxes  or  packages  in  which  the  goods  are  con- 
tained, for  the  purpose  of  appraising  them  and  receiving  the  duties,  which 
are  to  be  returned  at  the  time  of  exportation,  is  not  only  productive  of 
great  expense  and  labor,  but  affords  an  ample  opportunity  to  the  merchant 
w7ho  might  be  disposed  to  avail  himself  of  it,  in  repacking  the  goods  which 


Rep.  No.  669. 


183 


he  enters  at  the  custom-house  for  exportation,  to  substitute  other  goods  of 
inferior  value,  or  of  domestic  manufacture,  and  so  to  arrange  the  boxes  or 
packages  as  to  avoid  detection.  One  package  is  usually  sent  to  the  pub- 
lic store  for  examination,  and  the  others  retained  in  the  store  of  the  mer- 
chant. A  very  slight  examination  is  made  even  of  the  package  sent  to 
the  public  store  for  that  purpose,  the  principal  reliance  being  placed  on 
the  oath  required  to  be  taken  by  the  merchant. 

What  the  contents  of  the  boxes  and  packages  remaining  in  the  hands  of 
the  merchant  are  is  very  imperfectly  known,  and  often  not  inquired  into  at 
all.  This  duty  is  usually  confided  to  an  inspector  of  the  customs,  or  some 
clerk  in  the  custom-house.  It  is  stated,  by  some  well-informed  merchants, 
that  domestic  cottons  are  not  unfrequently  substituted  for  fine  woollens,  a 
few  pieces  of  the  woollen  goods  being  placed  on  the  top  of  the  box  or 
package.  It  is  aiso  stated  that  boxes  or  packages  are  frequently  changed 
in  transitu  between  the  store  and  the  ship.  These  frauds  are  highly  in- 
jurious to  the  revenue,  and  ought  to  be  corrected,  if  practicable.  They 
more  frequently  occur  in  exportations  of  woollen  or  cotton  goods  than  in 
any  other  class  of  merchandise. 

By  such  devices,  when  successfully  carried  out,  the  goods  actually  im- 
ported, and  on  which  duties  have  been  paid,  remain  in  the  country  for  a 
market,  while  the  duties  are  returned  to  the  importer,  which,  in  many  in- 
stances, amount  to  more  than  the  value  of  the  goods  substituted  for  a  for- 
eign market.  The  utmost  care  and  vigilance  which  can  be  bestowed  on 
these  exportations  by  the  officers  of  the  customs  cannot,  in  every  case,  de- 
tect these  fraudulent  practices  ;  but  it  is  evident  that,  where  so  large  an 
amount  of  business  is  transacted  in  foreign  merchandise  as  in  the  port  of 
New  York,  the  labor  and  attention  requisite  to  a  strict  examination  of 
every  package  entered  for  exportatation  can  scarcely  be  expected. 

It  appears  to  the  undersigned,  upon  the  best  information  he  has  been 
enabled  to  obtain  on  the  subject,  and  from  his  own  reflections,  that  the 
most  effectual  remedy  for  these  evils  would  be  found  in  the  establishment 
of  a  well-regulated  system  of  warehousing.  The  experience  of  other  coun- 
tries is  in  favor  of  this  system,  where  its  utility  has  been  amply  tested. 
Considerations  of  economy,  as  well  as  security  against  frauds  on  the  reve- 
nue, combine  to  recommend  its  adoption.  The  services  of  a  considerable 
number  of  clerks  and  other  custom-house  officers  might,  under  this  system, 
be  dispensed  with,  and  the  receipts  for  storage  would  constitute  an  import- 
ant item  in  the  revenues  of  the  Government.  The  payment  of  duties  in 
cash,  on  the  delivery  of  the  goods  in  store,  or  any  part  of  them,  to  the 
owner  or  consignee,  from  time  to  time,  might  be  substituted  for  the  credit 
system,  on  every  description  of  merchandise.  Any  number  of  packages 
entered  for  exportation  would  be  removed,  and  placed  on  board  the  vessel 
in  which  they  are  shipped,  without  having  been  opened,  precisely  in  the 
state  in  which  they  were  originally  imported.  No  duties  having  been  paid 
on  them,  none  would  be  returned,  and  the  only  charge  made  on  them 
would  be  the  customary  port  charges  and  storage. 

This  subject  is  so  well  understood  in  the  mercantile  community,  both  at 
home  and  abroad,  and  its  advantages  so  fully  developed,  both  in  theory 
and  practice,  that  it  is  deemed  unnecessary  to  do  more  than  to  suggest  this 
modification  of  our  revenue  laws  for  the  consideration  and  action  of  the 
Legislative  and  Executive  departments  of  the  Government.  There  ap- 
pears to  be  a  general  sentiment,  among  the  intelligent  merchants  of  long 


184 


Rep.  No.  669. 


experience  in  commercial  matters,  in  favor  of  the  system,  as  the  one  best 
calculated  for  the  convenience  of  importers  of  foreign  merchandise,  and  for 
the  security  of  the  Government  against  frauds  or  evasions  of  the  revenue. 

The  policy  of  extending  the  privilege  of  drawbacks  and  debentures  to 
the  commerce  of  the  great  lakes  and  the  St.  Lawrence,  on  the  Canada  fron- 
tier, and  to  other  interior  places,  appears  to  have  occupied  the  attention  of 
Congress  at  their  present  session.  It  was  the  intention  of  the  undersigned 
to  have  incorporated  some  views  on  this  subject  in  this  report ;  but,  per- 
ceiving that  a  bill  is  on  its  passage  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  con- 
taining the  principle,  and  looking  to  the  establishment  of  a  more  enlarged 
system  of  debentures,  embracing  the  interior  commerce  of  the  country,  it  is 
deemed  unnecessary  to  enter  further  into  the  subject  than  to  express  the 
belief  that  the  proposed  modification  of  the  existing  laws  would  operate 
favorably  on  the  carrying  trade,  and  other  commercial  operations  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  British  provinces,  and  on  the  borders  of  Texas  and 
Mexico.  The  necessity  for  these  new  arrangements  is  enforced,  since  the 
list  of  free  goods  has  been  greatly  diminished,  and  may  be  still  further  di- 
minished under  the  tariff  of  duties  which  will,  in  all  probability,  be  adopted 
by  Congress  at  the  present  session. 

A  reorganization  of  the  departments  of  the  New  York  custom-house 
would  seem  to  be  required,  for  the  better  security  of  the  revenue  against 
frauds,  and  the  supervision  of  the  conduct  of  the  various  officers  intrusted 
with  important  duties,  to  be  performed  at  remote  distances  from  the  cus- 
tom-house. The  inspectors,  who  are  placed  on  board  of  vessels  arriving 
from  foreign  ports  for  the  purpose  of  discharging  their  cargoes,  might,  by 
negligence  or  design,  fail  or  omit  to  perform  their  duties  with  fidelity,  vigil- 
ance, and  watchfulness,  and  thereby  open  the  door  to  the  perpetrators  of 
fraud,  or  evasions  of  the  revenue,  to  an  extent,  which  cannot  readily  be 
calculated.  The  devices  through  which  these  frauds  or  evasions  may  be 
practised  are  well  understood,  and  those  who  perpetrate  them  are  seldom 
wanting  in  the  means  to  escape  detection.  These  discharging  officers, 
therefore,  ought  to  be  subjected  to  a  more  rigid  discipline  and  responsibil- 
ity than  have  heretofore  been  enforced  on  them.  Suitable  checks  and 
guards  should  be  placed  around  them,  by  which  any  neglect  of  duty,  or 
malpractices  on  their  part,  might  be  discovered,  and  effectuallly  restrained 
or  punished.  It  is  respectfully  suggested  that  this  branch  of  the  service  at 
the  custom-house  might  be  improved  by  diminishing  the  number  of  inspect- 
ors, and  a  corresponding  increase  of  the  salaries  of  the  number  retained,  of 
whom  a  greater  amount  of  duty  might  be  required  and  performed,  by  suit- 
able regulations,  properly  enforced. 

Another  advantage  of  an  increase  of  salary,  and  a  reduction  of  numbers 
in  this  class  of  officers,  would  be  the  selection  of  competent  persons,  who 
cannot  be  so  readily  had  for  the  small  compensation  now  allowed  by  law. 
The  result  of  which  is,  that  many  individuals  now  holding  the  office  of  in- 
spector are  not  only  incompetent  to  the  discharge  of  the  most  important  duties 
confided  to  them,  but,  from  their  poverty  and  necessities,  are  more  liable 
to  the  temptations  of  pecuniary  rewards  than  men  of  a.  higher  grade  of 
character,  well  qualified  for  the  station,  and  capable  of  performing  double 
the  amount  of  duty  with  accuracy.  But  such  men  cannot  be  had  without 
an  increase  of  salary.  This  arrangement,  if  adopted,  would  give  greater 
efficiency  than  at  present  exists  to  the  corps  of  inspectors,  and  greater  secu- 
rity to  the  public  revenue  against  importers  of  foreign  merchandise  who 


Bep.  No.  669. 


185 


might  be  disposed  to  evade  the  payment  of  duties  or  violate  the  penal 
sanctions  of  the  revenue  laws. 

The  night  inspectors,  as  before  stated,  might  safely  be  reduced  to  a  very 
small  number,  or  dispensed  with  altogether.  It  accords  with  the  experience  of 
all  business  men,  that,  in  proportion  as  you  multiply  officers  in  any  depart- 
ment of  the  Government,  you  introduce  inaction,  idleness,  and  neglect  of 
duty ;  and  this  is  particularly  the  case  at  the  present  moment  at  the  New 
York  custom-house. 

The  utility  of  separating  the  auditor  and  cashier  from  the  influence  of 
the  collector,  and  more  effectually  to  constitute  them  checks  on  each  other 
and  on  the  collector,  has  already  been  suggested.  To  this  it  may  be  proper 
to  add,  that  it  is  believed  that  the  system  would  be  greatly  improved  by  trans- 
ferring the  appointment  of  deputy  collectors  from  the  collector  to  the  Secreta- 
ry of  the  Treasury.  The  evil  consequences  of  subjecting  such  officers  of 
the  customs  to  the  arbitrary  will  of  the  collector  was  fully  demonstrated 
during  the  term  of  office  of  Jesse  Hoyt ;  and  we  have  no  reason  to  expect 
any  improvement  in  this  respect  while  these  officers  are  appointed  and 
removed  at  the  pleasure  of  the  collector.  The  principal  appraisers,  on 
whose  judgment,  the  estimate  of  duties  to  be  collected  on  every  description 
of  foreign  merchandise  essentially  depends,  and  who  therefore  constitute  one 
of  the  most  important  departments  of  the  New  York  custom-house,  ought 
to  be  increased  in  number,  and  their  duties  more  particularly  defined  and 
specified.  At  present,  the  duty  of  examining  and  appraising  foreign  impor- 
tations devolves  almost  entirely  on  the  assistant  appraisers  ;  the  approval 
of  the  principal  appraisers  being  given  as  a  matter  of  form,  without  any 
knowledge  of  the  goods  appraised,  other  than  that  derived  from  their  as- 
sistants. This  is  the  general  course  of  business,  to  which  there  may  be 
some  exceptions.  The  principal  appraisers  are  presumed  to  be  selected 
for  their  mercantile  skill  and  knowledge  of  the  actual  cost  or  value  of  for- 
eign  fabrics  at  the  place  whence  imported,  and  of  the  quality  of  such  goods, 
when  submitted  to  their  examination  and  appraisement.  To  obtain  the 
services  of  such  men,  an  ample  salary  is  indispensable  ;  and  their  respon- 
sibility for  the  accurate  appraisement  of  all  goods,  sent  to  the  public  store 
for  that  purpose,  ought  to  be  direct  and  positive.  While  the  assistant  ap- 
praisers perform  nearly  the  whole  duty  of  examining  and  appraising  goods, 
their  judgment  is  substituted  for  that  of  the  principal  appraisers.  And  if 
errors  are  committed  in  these  appraisements,  to  the  injury  of  the  public 
revenue,  the  higher  class  of  officers  are  excused,  because  they  acted  on  the 
report  of  an  inferior  class  of  officers,  who  receive  a  smaller  salary,  and 
cannot,  in  all  cases,  be  relied  on  with  the  same  confidence  which  ought  to 
be  reposed  in  merchants  of  great  experience,  and  such  as  the  Government 
would,  for  that  reason,  appoint  to  the  office  of  principal  appraiser  at  the 
custom-house.  This  division  of  responsibility  operates  unfavorably  on  the 
faithful  and  impartial  discharge  of  the  duties  of  either  grade  of  officers, 
who  may  each  cast  the  blame  of  inaccurate  appraisements  on  the  other, 
and  thereby  escape  the  consequences  of  incompetent  judgment  or  negli- 
gence in  the  performance  of  these  high  and  important  duties.  It  is  worthy 
of  consideration  whether  the  system  would  not  be  improved  by  raising  the 
office  of  assistant  appraiser  to  the  rank  of  principal  appraiser,  in  such  num- 
bers as  may  be  adequate  to  a  personal  examination  of  all  the  goods  ordered 
to  the  public  store  for  appraisement.    There  would,  under  this  regulation, 


186 


Rep.  No.  669. 


be  but  one  class  of  officers  of  this  description,  and  the  certified  appraise- 
ment of  each  would  be  made  on  his  own  knowledge  of  the  goods,  and,, 
consequently,  more  confidence  could  be  placed  in  its  accuracy.  The  ap- 
praisers, thus  organized,  might  be  advantageously  distributed  to  the  vari- 
ous lofts  in  the  public  store,  assigning  each  to  the  loft  in  which  the  class  of 
foreign  goods  is  placed  which  falls  more  particularly  within  the  scope  of 
his  experience  as  a  merchant,  and  on  which  he  is  best  qualified  to  affix  a 
proper  value.  A  merchant  accustomed  to  import  foreign  woollens  would 
not  usually  be  qualified  to  judge  of  the  actual  cost  or  value  of  foreign  silks; 
and  the  same  remark  would  apply  to  all  the  various  classes  of  foreign  im- 
portations. This  difficulty  in  the  practical  operation  of  the  appraiser's  de- 
partment might  be  overcome  by  the  appointment  of  one  appraiser  to  the 
woollens  loft,  who  should  be  skilled  in  that  branch  of  commerce  ;  one  to 
the  silk  and  fancy  dry  goods  loft ;  one  to  the  loft  where  bleached  and 
colored  cottons,  linens,  and  dry  goods,  not  included  in  the  woollens  or 
French  goods,  are  examined  ;  one  for  the  hardware  loft ;  one  for  crockery 
and  glass  ware  ;  one  for  jewelry,  fancy  hardware,  and  precious  stones, 
including  watches  and  watch  materials  ;  one  for  drugs,  medicines,  paints,, 
dye  stuffs,  and  other  materials  used  in  dyeing,  and  all  other  articles  coming 
under  the  denomination  of  dry  salteries;  and  one  for  unmanufactured  iron 
of  all  descriptions. 

Should  these  regulations  be  carried  out  by  legislative  enactments,  there 
will  be  in  each  loft  a  skilful  and  competent  appraiser,  well  qualified  to  judge 
of  the  cost  or  value  of  the  description  of  foreign  goods  at  the  place  from 
which  they  were  imported,  submitted  to  his  separate  examination  and  ap- 
praisement. Thus  a  direct  accountability  of  each  appraiser,  for  the  fidelity 
and  accuracy  of  his  appraisements,  will  be  created,  and  a  rigid  enforcement 
of  these  duties  will  greatly  contribute  to  the  facilities  of  commerce  and  the 
security  of  the  public  revenue.  The  increase  of  expense  will  bear  no  com- 
parison with  the  advantages  which  will  result  from  the  proposed  arrange- 
ment of  the  principal  appraisers.  We  have  the  sanction  of  experience  for 
the  opinion  that,  in  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  the  reduction  of  salaries 
to  a  low  standard  is  bad  economy,  as  it  introduces  incompetent  persons  into 
office,  on  the  faithful  and  intelligent  discharge  of  whose  duties  the  safety 
of  the  revenue  reposes;  and  although  a  small  amount  maybe  saved  to  the 
public  Treasury  by  inadequate  salaries,  the  ultimate  consequences  far  trans- 
cend this  saving,  by  the  losses  resulting  from  incompetency,  if  not  from  pe- 
cuniary temptations. 

In  all  cases  of  seizure,  a  consultation  of  the  whole  number  of  principal 
appraisers  should  be  held;  and  if  a  majority  of  them  should  be  of  opinion 
that  the  goods  were  invoiced  or  entered  by  the  owner,  importer,  agent,  or 
consignee,  with  intent  to  defraud  the  revenue,  and  evade  the  payment  of 
the  full  amount  of  duties  which  ought  to  accrue  on  such  importation,  it 
shall  be  their  duty  to  certify  the  same  to  the  collector,  who  shall  forthwith 
cause  the  goods  thus  attempted  to  be  fraudulently  entered  to  be  seized  and 
libelled,  and  not  otherwise.  And  if  it  shall  appear,  on  the  trial  of  such 
libel,  that  the  certificate  given  by  the  appraisers,  or  a  majority  of  them,  was 
given  without  sufficient  cause,  and  that  no  fraudulent  intent  in  the  entry 
of  the  goods  existed,  or  was  established  on  the  trial,  then  and  in  that  case 
the  appraisers,  whose  names  are  subscribed  to  the  certificate  of  such  fraud- 
ulent intent,  shall  be  made  liable,  jointly  and  separately,  to  the  action  of 
the  party  aggrieved,  for  such  damages  as  the  claimant  of  the  goods  may 


Rep.  No  669.  187 

have  sustained  by  reason  of  such  unauthorized  seizure.  This  modification 
of  the  existing  laws  would  be  a  salutary  limitation  on  the  powers  hereto- 
fore possessed  and  exercised  by  the  collector,  who  often  made  arbitrary 
seizures  without  cause,  thereby  taxing  the  Government  with  a  large  amount 
of  costs  in  proseculions  which  could  not  be  sustained,  to  the  great  embar- 
rassment of  foreign  commerce,  and  a  consequent  deterioration  of  the  reve- 
nue derived  from  imposts. 

Another  modification  of  the  present  system  of  appraisement  is  suggested. 
It  has  been  the  practice  of  former  collectors,  and  of  the  present  incumbent,, 
when  goods  are  ordered  to  be  reappraised,  if  the  collector  shall  be  dis- 
satisfied with  the  appraisement,  or  if  the  owner,  agent,  or  consignee,  should 
desire  such  reappraisement,  to  exhibit  to  the  merchants  selected  by  the 
collector  as  apppraisers  the  original  invoices,  by  means  of  which  the 
judgment  of  the  merchants  may  be  influenced,  to  the  prejudice  of  the 
importer.  In  such  cases,  it  would  contribute  to  the  impartiality  of  all 
such  reappraisements  to  place  the  goods  to  be  examined  before  the  mer- 
chants called  in  for  that  purpose,  without  the  original  invoices  or  the 
prices  at  which  the  goods  are  invoiced  or  appraised,  and  require  them  to< 
estimate  the  goods  contained  in  the  packages,  on  a  view  of  them,  accord- 
ing to  their  judgment,  given  under  oath,  of  the  actual  value  or  cost  of 
such  goods,  at  the  place  from  whence  they  are  imported.  This  regulation 
would  deprive  either  ,  the  collector,  the  owner,  agent,  or  consignee,  of  the 
opportunity  to  create  in  the  minds  of  the  merchants  selected  as  appraisers 
a  prejudice,  either  for  or  against  the  Government,  and  thereby  ensure  more 
effectually  equal  and  impartial  justice  in  the  reappraisement. 

The  subject  of  a  new  tariff  of  duties  being  under  the  consideration  of 
Congress,  and  the  commissioners  having,  to  some  extent,  taken  evidence 
in  relation  to  it,  there  may  be  no  impropriety  in  making  it  a  part  of  the 
report  of  their  proceedings  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The  rate  of 
duties  which  it  may  be  necessary  to  impose,  for  revenue  to  meet  the 
wants  of  the  Government,  is  a  question  the  decision  of  which  belongs 
exclusively  to  the  Legislature  of  the  Union,  where  it  will,  doubtless,  be 
properly  considered  and  adjusted,  in  reference  to  that  object,  connected 
with  all  the  great  interests  of  the  country.  The  incidental  encouragement 
thus  afforded  to  particular  branches  of  domestic  enterprise  and  industry 
would  seem  to  be  sufficient  for  all  legitimate  purposes,  without  reviving 
the  vexed  question  of  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  levy  imposts 
on  foreign  productions,  as  a  substantive  measure  of  protection  to  the  man- 
ufacturers of  like  productions  at  home.  The  beneficial  results  of  protection, 
by  means  of  exorbitant  duties  on  the  external  commerce  of  nations,  is 
doubted  by  the  ablest  statesmen  of  England,  and  most  of  the  other  com- 
mercial countries  of  Europe,  where  a  full  and  fair  experiment  has  been 
made,  for  centuries,  of  its  effects  on  the  fabrics  intended  to  be  protected 
from  foreign  competition.  It  is  at  this  day  well  understood  that  the  corn 
laws  of  England  operate  as  a  heavy  tax  on  her  manufacturing  industry,, 
and  it  may  be  questioned  whether  their  repeal  would  to  any  material  ex- 
tent add  to  the  export  trade  of  the  United  States.  This  restrictive  policy 
seems  to  be  pretty  generally  repudiated  in  both  hemispheres ;  and  any 
attempt  to  revive  the  system  on  these  principles  in  this  country  would 
operate  in  inverse  ratio  to  the  end  designed  to  be  accomplished.  Success 
is  certain  in  every  branch  of  industry,  where  it  is  prosecuted  with  vigil- 
ance, enterprise,  and  skill,  fearless  of  all  competition  from  any  quarter. 


1S8 


Rep.  No.  669. 


The  improvements  of  the  age,  in  machinery,  manufactures,  steam  naviga- 
tion, railroads,  and  the  mechanic  arts,  may  justly  be  ascribed  to  a  clear 
open  field  of  competition  among  the  nations  of  the  earth.  In  the  great 
struggle  for  supremacy  between  the  artisans  of  different  countries,  the 
human  mind  has  been  taxed  to  the  utmost  limit,  and  its  energies  brought 
into  action,  to  gain  the  palm  of  excellence,  in  useful  inventions  for  the 
benefit  of  mankind,  and  for  individual  fame  and  frofit.  It  is  not  by  shut- 
ting our  doors  against  the  products  of  the  world,  or  against  the  lights  of 
science  and  the  arts,  that  we  are  to  hope  to  reach  the  high  destiny  which 
awaits  the  American  people,  but  by  skill,  enterprise,  industry,  and  econo- 
my, to  mount  above  the  barriers  thrown  in  the  way  of  our  prosperity  by 
other  nations,  and  thus  to  supersede  the  necessity  for  their  fabrics  by  the 
excellence  of  our  own ;  which,  being  supplied  in  sufficient  quantities  to 
meet  the  demand,  would  without  the  factitious  aid  of  legislative  protection, 
give  the  command  of  the  home  market  to  the  domestic  manufacturers. 

That  branch  of  industry  which  cannot  succeed  without  the  aid  of  boun- 
ties or  monopolies  must,  in  the  end,  be  abandoned  for  some  employment 
which  can  be  sustained  and  rendered  profitable  to  the  laborer  or  capital- 
ist, independent  of  the  precarious  and  uncertain  policy  of  extending  to  it 
the  arm  of  Government  for  its  support.  The  power  of  taxation,  either 
direct  or  indirect,  is  limited  by  its  nature,  and  by  the  provisions  of  the 
Constitution,  to  the  wants  of  the  Government  ;  "  to  pay  the  debts  and 
provide  for  the  general  welfare  of  the  United  States."  Duties  imposed 
for  these  legitimate  purposes  have  the  high  sanctions  of  the  Constitution 
and  of  public  opinion;  but  where  those  duties  are  designed  not  for  reve- 
nue, but  for  protection  to  special  interests  connected  with  any  branch  of 
labor  or  industry,  they  find  no  sanction  in  the  Constitution,  and  are  odious 
to  all  classes  except  those  directly  interested  in  their  results. 

Without  ^tempting  to  present  in  extenso  the  views  connected  with  this 
important  subject,  which  might  be  considered  out  of  place  in  this  paper, 
prepared  for  the  use  of  the  Treasury  Department,  it  will  suffice  to  limit 
them  to  a  practical  matter  of  fact  review  of  the  existing  condition  of 
our  foreign  commerce,  and  the  means  best  adapted  to  the  restoration  of 
public  credit  and  the  general  prosperity  of  the  country.  The  first  fact  is, 
that  the  Treasury  is  languishing  under  a  fatal  state  of  pauperism,  and 
needs  prompt  and  immediate  nourishment  to  impart  to  it  fresh  life  and 
vigor.  To  effect  this  object,  it  is  essential  that  a  permanent  rate  of  duties 
should  be  fixed,  adequate  to  an  income  to  meet  a  liberal  estimate  of  the 
expenditures  of  the  Government. 

A  tariff  established  on  the  basis  of  this  principle  would  afford  to  the 
manufacturing  interests  of  the  country  the  most  ample  security  for  a  home 
market,  at  fair  prices,  for  all  the  articles  of  consumption  which  may  be  re- 
quired for  the  supply  of  that  market.  But  as  the  sole  reliance  of  the 
Government  for  revenue  is  placed  on  imposts,  it  would  seem  that  our  le- 
gislation should  look  to  a  reasonable  encouragement  of  the  import  trade  of 
the  country,  rather  than  to  its  depression  by  exorbitant  exactions  which  it 
cannot  bear.  The  imposition  of  duties  to  increase  the  revenue  fixes  its 
own  limitation,  for  the  end  would  be  effectually  defeated  if  the  means 
adopted  for  its  accomplishment  should  tend  to  the  destruction  of  foreign 
commerce,  on  which  these  duties  are  to  be  levied  and  collected.  It  may 
be  doubted  whether  any  system  of  taxation,  however  moderate,  can  re- 
store our  external  commerce  to  its  former  activity  in  the  existing  condition 


Hep.  No.  669. 


of  the  country,  and  under  the  embarrassments  and  losses  to  which  foreign 
importations  have  been  subjected  by  the  arbitrary  practices  introduced  at 
the  New  York  custom-house  since  the  year  1S3S,  approved  by  the  head 
of  the  Treasury  Department  at  the  time,  and  the  construction  given  to  our 
complicated  system  of  revenue  laws  by  the  supreme  judicial  tribunal,  in  a 
recent  decision  of  the  court.  The  deleterious  effects  of  this  new  system 
of  seizures  and  condemnations  of  foreign  goods,  after  they  have  under- 
gone every  scrutiny  required  by  law,  and  the  duties  fairly  estimated  and 
paid  at  the  custom-house,  and  the  goods  delivered,  by  the  permit  of  the 
collector,  to  the  owner,  agent,  or  consignee,  have  become  evident  from  the 
diminished  amount  of  importations,  and  the  consequent  impoverished  state 
of  the  public  Treasury.  Let  the  tariff  be  high  or  low,  if  there  is  no  se- 
curity for  property,  after  the  laws  have  been  complied  with  by  importers, 
and  the  full  amount  of  duties  demanded  by  our  own  officers  paid,  confi- 
dence in  our  institutions,  and  the  practice  under  them,  will  be,  as  it  has 
been,  weakened  and  impaired  to  an  extent  utterly  ruinous  to  our  commer- 
cial intercourse  with  the  world,  and  highly  injurious  to  the  national  char- 
acter. Any  table  of  duties  which  the  wisdom  of  Congress  may  devise, 
necessary  to  replenish  the  Treasury,  would  be  promptly  met  by  importers  j 
and  any  form  of  estimating  them  which  might  be  prescribed  by  law  would 
constitute  no  ground  of  complaint,  if  the  owner  is  assured  that  his  goods 
are  safe  from  arbitrary  seizure,  after  all  the  requirements  of  the  law  have 
been  complied  with. 

No  such  assurance  can  be  given,  under  the  late  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court,  without  the  interposition  of  Congress,  by  positive  legislation,  declaring 
that  no  goods  should  be  subject  to  seizure,  after  they  shall  have  been  reg- 
ularly entered  and  appraised,  and  delivered  to  the  owner,  agent,  or  con- 
signee, by  the  permit  of  the  collector,  on  the  payment  of  all  duties  and 
charges  thereon.    This  provision  of  law  would  restore  confidence  to  the 
importers  of  foreign  merchandise,  and  to  some  extent  revive  the  commerce 
of  the  country  from  its  present  depressed  condition.    It  is  believed  that  no 
commercial  nation  in  the  world  recognises  by  its  laws  the  absurd  principle 
that  goods  may  be  libelled  and  condemned  wherever  they  may  be  found, 
after  they  have  passed  through  the  custom-house,  and  the  duties  demanded 
are  paid.    The  practice  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  of  our  own  laws, 
fairly  and  properly  interpreted;  but,  with  the  sanction  it  has  received,  the 
remedy  for  this  evil  is  to  be  found  only  in  affirmative  legislation.  Having- 
touched  this  subject  in  a  previous  part  of  this  report,  a  more  extended  view 
of  the  laws  relating  to  it  may  be  dispensed  with.    The  system  established 
by  the  act  of  1799,  which  continued  in  force  until  1818,  was  virtually 
changed  in  the  latter  year  by  a  temporary  act,  revived  from  time  to  time 
up  to  the  year  1832,  at  which  date  a  permanent  law  was  enacted,  estab- 
lishing a  new  system,  totally  inconsistent  with  the  act  of  1799,  regulating 
the  entry  and  appraisement  of  foreign  merchandise  imported  into  the  United 
States.   The  act  of  1799  made  no  provision  for  the  appointment  of  regular 
appraisers,  but  simply  authorized  the  collector  to  call  on  two  respectable 
merchants  to  appraise  goods  which  in  his  opinion  were  invoiced  below 
•their  actual  cost  or  value.    There  is  no  instance  on  record  of  a  seizure  of 
goods  made  under  that  act,  after  the  appraisement  thus  made,  and  the  pay- 
ment of  duties.    The  forfeiture  of  goods  provided  for  in  the  cases  enumer- 
ated in  the  66th  section  of  the  act  relates  expressly  to  goods  in  transitu 
through  the  custom-house,  while  they  remained  in  the  power  of  the  col- 


it 


190 


Rep.  No.  669. 


lector,  and  did  not  extend  to  goods  on  which  an  appraisement  was  ordered, 
and  the  duties  received  by  the  collector.  By  the  act  oi  1832,  a  regular 
board  of  appraisers  was  organized,  and  it  was  made  the  imperative  duty  of 
the  collector  to  order  all  merchandise  imported  from  foreign  countries  to 
be  sent  to  the  public  store,  in  such  quantities  as  he  might  think  necessary, 
to  be  there  examined  by  the  Government  appraisers,  and  valued  by  the 
standard  of  the  actual  cost  or  value  of  each  article  at  the  place  whence  im- 
ported. 

The  two  systems  are  utterly  inconsistent,  and  cannot  exist  together. 
The  new  law,  according  to  every  principle  of  legal  construction  and  of 
common  sense,  takes  precedence  of  the  old,  and  where  they  conflict  the 
old  law  must  be  regarded  as  effectually  abrogated.  The  question  then 
arises,  whether  goods  entered  under  the  act  of  1832,  and  submitted  to  the 
examination  of  the  appraisers,  who  pass  them  according  to  invoice  or 
entry,  are  liable  to  seizure  under  the  act  of  1799,  (the  provisions  of 
which  are  in  direct  conflict  with  the  subsequent  act,)  without  proof  of  a 
fraudulent  intent  on  the  part  of  the  importer,  or  of  bribery  or  collusion 
with  the  appraisers,  or  some  one  of  them  ? 

In  the  case  before  the  Supreme  Court  at  its  last  term  there  were  twen- 
two  pieces  of  goods  libelled  in  the  district  court  at  Baltimore,  as  having 
been  fraudulently  passed  at  the  custom-house  in  New  York.  These 
goods  were  examined,  piece  by  piece,  at  the  public  store  in  New  York, 
and  found  to  be  entered  at  fair  prices  ;  they  were  passed  by  the  apprais- 
ers, and  subsequently  by  merchant  appraisers,  called  in  by  the  collector, 
at  invoice  prices  ;  the  duties  were  paid,  and  the  goods  delivered  on  the 
permit  of  the  collector.    They  were  subsequently  seized,  under  the  affi- 
davit of  a  person  who  had  never  seen  them,  and  who  could  not  identify 
the  goods,  or  even  the  ship  in  which  they  were  imported,  and  finally  con- 
demned without  the  slightest  evidence  to  implicate  the  importer.  The 
verdict  of  condemnation  has  been  affirmed  by  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
thereby  the  principle  is  established  that  no  importer  is  safe  in  entering 
goods  under  the  act  of  1832,  although  it  is  the  only  existing  law  under 
which  he  can  enter  them,  because  he  is  liable  to  be  turned  back  to  the 
act  of  1799,  after  all  the  requisites  of  the  law  have  been  complied 
with,  and  the  goods  removed  to  a  distant  port  for  market.    The  onus  pro- 
bandi,  as  to  the  actual  cost  of  goods  in  Europe,  is  thrown  upon  the  claim- 
ant, in  opposition  to  the  certificate  of  the  appraisers  ;  and,  in  the  absence 
of  positive  proof  that  the  invoice  prices  of  the  goods  correspond  with  their 
actual  value,  the  courts  of  the  United  States  adjudge  them  to  be  forfeited, 
not  by  the  law  under  which  they  were  entered,  but  by  an  ancient  law, 
of  which  the  importer  could  have  had  no  knowledge,  and  according  to 
the  provisions  of  which  no  entry  could  have  been  made  at  the  custom- 
house, or  recognised  by  the  collector,  as  his  duties  were  defined  under 
the  act  of  1832.    The  amount  of  seizures  depending  in  a  great  degree 
on  this  principle,  and  which  remain  undecided  in  the  district  courts  of 
Maryland  and  Pennsylvania,  is  very  large  ;  and,  if  the  principle  is  en- 
forced without  modification,  there  is  but  little  need  of  prohibitions  to  ex- 
clude lrom  our  ports  foreign  productions ;  for  no  prudent  merchant  would 
venture  to  import  goods  into  a  country  where  there  is  no  security  for 
property,  either  before  or  after  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  Govern- 
ment have  declared  it  to  be  exempt  from  all  liability  to  the  penal  sanc- 
tions of  the  laws  regulating  the  intercourse  of  the  United  States  with  for- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


191 


eign  nations.  Many  large  importers  of  woollens  from  Great  Britain  into 
the  port  of  New  York  are  daily  in  the  habit  of  entering  their  goods  for 
exportation  under  the  discouraging  state  of  things  which  exists  in  this 
country,  and  a  very  limited  amount  of  importations  in  that  important 
branch  of  commerce  can  be  expected  during  the  current  year. 

Of  cotton  goods,  a  considerable  amount  has  been  bonded,  which  yet  re- 
main in  New  York,  in  the  hope  of  the  owner,  agent,  or  consignee,  that 
they  may  be  sold  at  a  fair  value,  before  the  duty  bonds  become  payable  ; 
but  it  is  believed,  by  the  best-informed  merchants,  that  the  greater  part  of 
this  class  of  goods  will  be  entered  for  exportation  in  advance  of  the  pay- 
ment of  these  bonds.  This  glance  at  the  condition  of  our  commerce  with 
other  countries  is  taken,  to  demonstrate  the  importance  of  giving  confi- 
dence and  security  to  that  commerce,  if,  indeed,  it  is  intended  to  rely  on 
that  resource  to  fill  the  empty  coffers  of  the  Treasury.  The  importations 
of  the  present  year  will  scarcely  equal  those  of  the  preceding  year,  many 
of  the  free  goods  of  1840  having  been  made  dutiable  by  the  act  of  1841. 
In  the  third  quarter  of  that  year  more  than  twenty-three  millions  in  value, 
a  large  proportion  of  which  were  free,  were  entered  at  the  port  of  New 
Y'ork,  shipped  in  season  to  reach  that  poit  before  the  new  tariff  went  into 
operation.  This  inducement  is  now  removed,  and  it  may  reasonably  be 
supposed  that  the  amount  of  importations  in  that  class  of  goods  will  be,  in 
future,  greatly  diminished.  But  there  are  other  causes  which  must  oper- 
ate to  limit  the  importations  of  foreign  merchandise  during  the  year. 
These  importations  depend  on  the  extent  of  sales  which  can  be  calculated 
on,  with  tolerable  certainty,  at  the  port  into  which  the  goods  are  brought. 
These  sales  will  depend  on  the  means  and  facilities  of  payment  by  the 
purchasers.  If  the  merchant  cannot  sell,  he  cannot  import ;  and  it  is  cer- 
tain that  he  will  not  sell  without  adequate  assurances  of  piompt  payment. 
In  the  present  condition  of  the  country,  therefore,  a  large  importation  of 
foreign  goods,  of  any  description,  is  not  to  be  expected,  without  a  currency 
of  uniform  value  throughout  the  Union.  With  a  deranged  state  of  the  exchan- 
ges, through  which  alone  remittances  can  be  made, by  the  interior  merchants, 
for  goods  purchased  for  the  consumption  of  the  country  in  New  York,  which 
is  the  great  emporium  of  our  commerce,  it  would  seem  to  be  impossible  that 
extensive  sales  should  be  made,  or  heavy  importations  ordered  from  Europe 
with  the  vain  hope  of  such  sales,  when  it  is  evident  to  the  trading  commu- 
nity that  there  exists  in  the  country  no  means  of  payment,  without  sacri- 
fices too  heavy  to  be  borne.  The  prosperity  of  New  York  is  based  on  for- 
eign commerce,  and  in  proportion  as  you  diminish  the  one  you  depress 
the  other.  The  interests  of  the  whole  country  may  be  identified  with  that  of 
the  great  commercial  metropolis  of  the  nation,  in  this  respect  ;  and  what- 
ever tends  to  increase  the  ability  of  the  plantation  States,  particularly  the 
great  valley  of  the  Mississippi,  to  meet  their  pecuniary  engagements  for 
foreign  merchandise,  tends,  in  the  same  ratio,  to  invite  and  justify  its  im- 
portation. To  produce  these  results,  by  the  measures  of  the  National  Gov- 
ernment, adapted  to  the  end,  is  an  object  deeply  interesting  to  the  mercan- 
tile community,  to  the  manufacturing  capitalist,  to  agriculture,  and  to  me- 
chanical labor;  but  the  experience  of  the  past  will  fully  justify  the  conclusion 
that  no  department  of  enterprise  or  industry,  among  the  great  body  of  the 
American  people,  can  flourish  in  the  absence  of  a  sound  circulating  medium 
of  uniform  value,  founded  on  a  metallic  basis  for  its  redemption,  and  sus- 
tained by  the  confidence  of  the  whole  country  With  such  a  currency,  and  the 


192 


Rep.  No.  669. 


facilities  of  a  cheap  and  convenient  system  of  exchanges,  commerce  would 
yield  a  revenue  commensurate  with  the  wants  of  the  Government,  and 
universal  prosperity  once  more  smile  on  this  highly  favored  land,  too 
long  depressed  by  visionary  experiments  and  speculative  policy,  at  war 
with  the  lights  of  experience  and  the  admonitions  of  adversity. 

The  system  of  ad  valorem  duties  seems  now  to  be  considered  as  the 
one  approaching  nearest  to  equality,  with  the  exception  of  particular  arti- 
cles, which  can  only  be  reached  by  specific  taxation.  These  it  will  be 
unnecessary  to  enumerate. 

On  the  subject  of  home  or  foreign  valuation  there  exists  a  diversity  of 
opinion.  The  system,  as  it  now  exists  under  our  revenue  laws,  recog- 
nises the  cost  or  value  of  goods  in  the  foreign  market  as  the  standard  by 
which  duties  are  to  be  estimated.  But  this  system  will  be  changed  by  the 
compromise  acton  the  31st  June  next,  when  that  act  goes  into  full  opera- 
tion, and  the  home  valuation  substituted  as  the  rule  of  calculating  duties 
on  importations.  The  Constitution  gives  to  Congress,  in  express  terms,  the 
power  "to  lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  to  pay  the 
debts  and  provide  for  the  common  defence  and  general  welfare  of  the 
United  States ;  but  all  duties,  imposts,  and  excises,  shall  be  uniform 
throughout  the  United  States."  It  would  seem  to  be  impracticable  tu 
conform  a  system  of  duties  and  imposts  to  this  article  of  the  Constitution, 
on  the  principle  of  home  valuation.  The  duties  could  not  be  made  uni- 
form throughout  the  United  States  unless  the  same  value  at  every  port  in 
the  Union  could  be  so  regulated  as  to  make  it  equal  on  every  article  of 
merchandise  manufactured  abroad  and  brought  into  the  United  States. 
This  equality  of  value  has  never  existed,  and  can  never  exist,  in  this 
country,  spread  over  so  wide  an  extent  of  territory,  and  so  diversified  in 
the  various  pursuits  of  labor.  The  home  value  of  every  article  of  mer- 
chandise would  be  different  at  every  port  into  which  it  might  be  brought. 
At  New  York  it  would  be  one  thing,  at  Charleston  another,  at  New  Or- 
leans a  different  value  from  both,  and  even  at  ports  contiguous  to  each 
other  there  would  be  a  discrepancy  in  value  which  would  constitute  a 
variance  in  the  amount  of  duties  levied  on  the  same  article  at  each.  In 
the  same  port  the  home  value  would  in  all  probability  change  two  or  three 
times  in  the  course  of  one  year;  and,  that  being  the  rule  which  must 
govern  the  appraisers,  it  becomes  their  duty  to  affix  such  prices  as  may 
correspond  with  the  value  of  the  goods  at  the  time  of  appraisement.  The 
standard  would  therefore  be  uncertain,  not  only  in  reference  to  the  whole 
Union,  but  to  any  particular  port  into  which  merchandise  may  be  im- 
ported. To  give  stability  to  any  tariff  of  duties  which  Congress  may- 
think  fit  to  impose,  it  is  important  that  it  should  be  permanent,  and  not 
liable  to  change  at  the  will  or  caprice  of  the  officers  of  the  Government, 
charged  with  the  collection  of  the  revenue.  This  object  can  best  be  ac- 
complished by  great  care  and  caution  in  the  selection  of  appraisers  of 
every  description  of  foreign  productions.  On  the  intelligence  and  fidel- 
ity of  this  class  of  officers  the  Government  must,  under  an  ad  valorem 
system,  either  of  home  or  foreign  valuation,  depend  for  a  due  execution  of 
the  revenue  laws  ;  and  it  is  therefore  of  the  highest  importance  that  the 
greatest  amount  of  experience  and  of  mercantile  information  should  be 
employed  in  this  department  of  the  custom-house,  which  can  only  he  had 
by  adequate  salaries. 

The  undersigned,  in  conclusion,  deems  it  proper  to  state  that,  before 


Rep.  No.  669.  193 

accepting  this  employment  from  the  Executive,  he  satisfied  himself,  by  a 
strict  examination  of  the  Constitution  and  laws,  that  the  power  to  institute 
this  investigation  was  fully  and  clearly  vested  in  the  President.  On  no 
other  principle  or  consideration  whatever  would  he  have  accepted  the 
trust,  Its  performance  has  been  to  him  a  source  of  great  embarrassment, 
and  of  sacrifices  which  can  only  be  compensated  by  the  assurance  that  he 
may  have  rendered  some  service  to  the  country.  It  is  believed  that  the 
developments  contained  in  this  report,  founded,  as  they  are,  on  evidence 
taken  before  the  commissioners,  and  official  correspondence  and  vouchers, 
fully  establish  the  necessity  of  the  investigations  which  have  been  made, 
and  constitute  an  ample  justification  of  the  Executive  action  on  the  occa- 
sion. If  the  modifications  suggested  in  the  report,  of  the  existing  regula- 
tions at  the  New  York  custom-house,  in  reference  both  to  the  appoint- 
ment and  division  of  powers  among  the  officers  charged  with  the  collec- 
tion of  the  revenue,  and  the  economy  which  ought  properly  to  be  intro- 
duced into  every  branch  of  expenditures  at  the  custom-house,  should  be 
adopted,  the  annual  saving  to  the  Government,  in  these  disbursements  of 
the  public  money,  will  not  fall  short  of  the  sum  of  $200,000  per  annum. 
This  may  be  demonstrated  by  an  examination  of  the  tabular  statements 
herein  given,  and  the  comparative  estimates  of  expenditures  from  1825  to 
the  end  of  the  year  1841. 

The  contingent  expenses  of  the  commission  are  not  fully  known,  but  they 
constitute  a  very  small  item,  compared  with  the  labor  which  has  been  im- 
posed on  the  investigating  commissioners.    Circumstances  over  which  the 
undersigned  had  no  control  left  many  of  the  objects  of  inquiry  with  which 
the  first  commission  was  charged  untouched  altogether,  or  not  sufficiently  in- 
vestigated. In  relation  to  some  of  these  objects,  no  evidence  whatever  has 
been  taken.    Among  these  maybe  enumerated  the  expenditures  on  light- 
houses, revenue  cutters  and  revenue  boats,  and  also  the  marine  hospital.  It 
was  also  important,  as  the  affairs  of  the  custom-house,  and  the  official  con- 
duct of  the  several  collectors,  from  the  period  of  service  of  Jonathan 
Thompson  to  the  close  of  the  term  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  had  been  explored,  and 
ail  the  evidence  taken  in  relation  to  this  whole  period,  which  came  within 
the  power  of  the  commissioners,  to  make  a  like  scrutiny  into  the  official 
conduct  of  the  present  collector.    This  part  of  the  investigation  was  al- 
most wholly  omitted  by  the  first  commission  ;  and  it  was  obvious  that  past 
abuses  could  not  be  properly  reformed  without  a  report  on  the  existing 
practices  at  the  custom-house,  which  became  necessary  to  satisfy  the  head 
of  the  Treasury  Department  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  reforms,  if 
any,  which  had  been  made  by  the  authority  of  the  new  collector,  since  he 
came  into  office.    To  supply  these  deficiencies,  it  was  deemed  by  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  important  to  the  public  interests  to  complete  the 
investigations  which  had  been  begun  and  but  partially  executed  ;  and  for 
that  purpose  the  commissioners  were  again  sent  to  the  city  of  New  York, 
to  resume  the  discharge  of  the  trust  confided  to  them.     The  time  occu- 
pied since  the  assembling  of  the  board  on  this  second  occasion  was  pro- 
tracted by  a  great  variety  of  circumstances,  which  it  might  not  be  proper 
or  necessary  to  introduce  into  this  report.    The  duty  has  been  arduous 
and  laborious,  and  the  great  care  and  caution  necessary  in  condensing  the 
evidence  and  official  correspondence  and  other  documents  have,  con- 
tributed to  delay  the  report  beyond  the  period  at  which  it  was  expected 
that  the  business  of  the  commission  might  have  been  closed, 
13 


194 


Rep.  No.  669. 


The  undersigned,  having  closed  his  labors,  and  discharged,  to  the  best 
of  his  ability,  the  trust  confided  to  him  as  one  of  the  commissioners  of 
investigation,  has  only  to  regret  that  these  duties  have  not  been  sooner 
performed,  and  to  submit  respectfully  the  foregoing  report  to  the  consider- 
ation of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

GEO.  POINDEXTER, 

Chairman  of  the  Commissioners. 


Office  of  Commissioners  of  Investigation,  &c, 

Washington,  D.  C,  April  12,  1842. 
Sir  ;  We  have  the  honor  to  transmit,  through  the  secretary  of  the  board, 
a  report  on  the  evidence  and  other  official  documents  on  the  files  of  the 
commissioners  appointed  to  investigate  the  affairs,  past  and  present,  of  the 
New  York  custom-house.  The  copy  may  not,  in  all  respects,  be  perfect, 
and  therefore  we  request  that,  after  you  shall  have  perused  it,  or  satisfied 
yourself  with  an  examination  into  its  contents,  you  will  be  pleased  to  return 
it,  for  our  revision  and  correction. 

On  the  subject  of  light-houses,  buoys,  beacons,  revenue  cutters,  and 
revenue  boats,  a  report  is  in  a  state  of  preparation,  and  will  be  transmitted 
to  you  in  a  few  days. 

The  original  testimony,  and  other  documents,  not  being  in  our  posses- 
sion, we  cannot  transmit  them  with  the  report. 

Those  appertaining  to  the  first  commission,  we  understand,  are  now  in 
your  Department. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servants, 

GEO.  POINDEXTER. 
WM.  A.  BRADLEY. 

The  Hon.  Walter  Forward, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Office  of  Commissioners  of  Investigation, 

Washington,  D.  (7.,  April  20,  1842. 
Sir  :  We  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  a  report,  on  the  evidence 
and  other  official  documents  on  the  files  of  the  commissioners  appointed 
to  investigate  the  affairs,  past  and  present,  of  the  New  York  custom-house, 
is  now  in  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

We  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servants, 

GEO.  POINDEXTER. 
WM.  A.  BRADLEY. 

To  his  Excellency  John  Tyler, 

President  of  the  United  Slates. 


(I?*  The  documents  accompanying  the  report  will  be  delivered 
separately. 


INDEX  TO  APPENDIX. 


May    1,  1838.    Wasson  to  Hoyt,  on  the  subject  of  Bottomly's  goods. 
May    1,  1838.    Wasson  to  Hoyt,  on  same  subject. 
May    1,  1838.    Wasson  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 
May    1,  1838.    La  Chaise  &  Fouche  and  Bottomly. 

May  26,  1840.  Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  expenses  of  his  department,  and  placing  Cairns  in 
the  woollens  loft  as  an' appraiser. 

July   6,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  stating  that  the  standard  value  on  woollens  was  too  low. 

July  11,  1839.  Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  putting  Cairns  in  woollens'  loft,  and  giv- 
ing him  additional  compensation. 

Aug.  29,  1839.  Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  taking  checks  a  few  days  ahead  for  cash  duties. 
He  says,  <(  In  this  way  I  help  along  all  I  can." 

Aug.  1,  1839.  Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  receipt  of  circular  of  the  9th  July  last;  spent 
one-half  of  his  time  for  the  last  month  in  the  appraisers'  store  ;  thereby  saved 
the  Government  a  much  larger  sum  than  he  holds  under  protest,  or  ever  has 
held. 

July  13,  1839.  Hoyt  to  Butler;  "in  case  of  his  sudden  demise,'''  he  wishes  Mr.  Kendall  sum- 
moned as  a  witness  in  the  case  of  cloths  belonging  to  Solomon. 

Jan.  18,  1840.  Hoyt  to  Butler ;  his  logic — "  two  negatives  make  an  affirmative  ;  and,  by  parity  of 
reasoning,  a  combination  of  two  free  articles  might  make  a  dutiable  one;" 
sends  Cairns  and  James,  who  will  confirm  what  he  says. 

Jan.  20,  1840.  Hoyt  to  Butler;  in  the  case  of  James  Hall,  Mr.  Cairns  will  explain  the  case 
as  we  understand  it. 

Feb.  11,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  relative  to  the  seizure  of  one  case  of  watches, 

imported  by  Wolf  &  Henriques. 
Feb.  13,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Solicitor,  relative  to  four  cases  piano  fortes  imported  by  Edward  Bache. 
Feb.  14,  1840.    Solicitor  to  Hoyt,  in  answer  to  his  of  the  11th  instant. 
Feb.  22,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Solicitor,  in  reply  to  his  of  the  14th  instant. 

Feb.  27,  1840.  Solicitor  to  Anthony  J.  Blcecker,  United  States  marshal,  on  the  subject  of  select- 
ing jurors. 

Sept.  18,  1839.  Butler  to  Hoyt;  seizure  of  two  cases  of  goods  ;  suits  discontinued  on  payment 
of  duties  and  costs. 

June  5,  1841.    Letter  from  Commissioners  to  T.  Ewing,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
June  12,  1841.    Ewing  to  Commissioners. 

June  12,  1841.  C.  B.  Penrose,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  toT.  Ewing,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Nov.  19,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  Solicitor,  on  the  subject  of  compromise  with  John  Taylor,  for 

the  sum  of  §25,000,  and  George  Shaw,  for  $15,000. 
Nov.  25,  1839.    Solicitor  to  Butler,  on  the  same  subject. 
Nov.  27,  1839.    Butler  to  Gilpin,  Solicitor,  in  reply. 

Dec.  16,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  relative  to  compromise  with  Samuel  Bradbury. 

Dec.  16,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  relative  to  compromise  with  Henry  Dixon. 

Dec.  16,  1839.    Same  to  same,  relative  to  compromise  with  James  Bottomly,  jr. 

Dec.  16,  1839.    Same  to  same,  compromise  with  Samuel  Shaw. 

Dec.  16,  1839.    Same  to  same,  on  the  settlement  of  four  suits  for  forfeitures. 

Dec.  20,  1839.    Butler  to  Solicitor,  on  the  subjects  above  referred  to. 

Dec.  21,  1839.    Solicitor  to  Hoyt,  in  reply  to  his  of  the  16th  instant. 

Dec.  23,  1839.  Solicitor  to  Butler,  relative  to  the  compromises  with  Samuel  Shaw,  James  Bot- 
tomly, jr.,  Henry  Dixon,  and  Samuel  Bradbury. 

Jan.  7,  1840.  Hoyt  to  Solicitor,  enclosing  correspondence  of  J.  Hoyt  and  Benjamin  F.  But- 
ler, Nos.  1,  2,  and  3. 

Nov.  19,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Solicitor,  complaining-  of  the  court  and  jury. 

Nov.  19,  1839.  Koyi  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  compromise  with  John  Taylor,  jr.,  and  George 
Shaw. 

Oct.    3,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Butler,  requesting  him  to  hold  John  Taylor,  jr.,  to  bail  for  $50,000. 


ii 


INDEX. 


Jan.  23,  1840.    Solicitor  to  Hoyt,  approving  the  compromises, 

Aug.  22,  1839.  Butler  to  Solicitor,  relative  to  compromises  with  La  Chaise  &  Fouche,  on  penal 
bonds. 

April 26,  1838.  Hoyt  to  De  Casse,  Micge,  &  Co.;  demands  their  goods  to  be  deposited  in  the 
public  store. 

April  26,  1838.    De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.  to  Hoyt,  requesting  him  to  communicate  to  them  on 

what  grounds  their  goods  were  seized. 
April  27,  1838.    Same  to  same,  on  same  subject. 
April  30,  1838.    Same  to  same,  on  same  subject. 

May   4,  1838.    Hoyt  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  in  reply  to  their  letters. 
May   5,  1838.    De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.  to  Hoyt,  on  same  subject. 
May    9,  1838.    Hoyt  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  on  same  subject. 
May  10,  1838.    De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.  to  Hoyt,  on  same  subject. 
May  11,  1838.    Hoyt  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  on  same  subject. 
May  12,  1838.    De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.  to  Hoyt,  on  same  subject. 
May  12,  1838.    Hoyt  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  on  same  subject. 
May  12,  1838.    F.  B.  Cutting  to  Hoyt,  on  same  subject. 
May  16,  1838.    Appraisers  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  on  same  subject. 
May  18,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price,  on  same  subject. 

May  18,  1838.  Same  to  same ;  authorizes  him  to  suspend  criminal  proceedings  till  9  o'clock 
next  day. 

May  19,  1838.  Hoyt  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.  ;  orders  them  again  to  deposite  their  goods  in 
public  store. 

May  19,  1838.  Hoyt  to  Price,  requesting  him  to  hold  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  to  bail  for 
$50,000. 

June  4,  1838.    Hoyt  to  J.  M.  Read,  United  States  district  attorney,  Philadelphia,  relative  to  three 

packages  of  goods  seized  in  Philadelphia,  belonging  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 

"  Their  guilt  is  unquestionable,  but  the  proof  is  not  easily  obtained.^ 
June  5,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price,  relative  to  suits  commenced  on  penal  bonds  of  Messrs.  La  Chaise 

&  Fouche,  and  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 
Aug.  29,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  new  bond  under  the  "Sub-Treasury  act." 
July  10,  1840.    Same  to  same,  relative  to  the  collection,  safe  keeping,  and  disbursement  of  the 

public  moneys. 

July  13,  1840.  Same  to  same,  relative  to  instructions  on  the  19th  section  of  the  "  Sub-Treasury 
act." 

July  20,  1840.    Same  to  same,  relative  to  his  carrying  out  the  act  of  the  4th  instant. 

Aug.  5,  1840.  Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  correspondence  with  the  First  Comptroller,  respect- 
ing new  bond — his  argument  enclosed. 

Aug.  14,  1840.  Attorney  General  Gilpin  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  Hoyt's  giving  new 
bond  under  the  Sub-Treasury  act. 

Aug.  28,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  the  accounts  of  his  office,  &c. 

Aug.  29,  1840.     Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  in  reply. 

Feb.  23,  1841.  Cairns  to  T.  Ewing,  soliciting  his  favor  to  present  to  the  President  his  applica- 
tion for  the  office  of  appraiser ;  refers  to  the  Hon.  Abbott  Lawrence  for 
character,  &c. 

Mar.  15,  1841.     Wasson  to  Hon.  Abbott  Lawrence,  soliciting  his  kind  offices  in  behalf  of  Cairns^ 
Sept.  12,  1840.    Hoyt  to  WToodbury,  relative  to  fitting  up  the  receiver  general's  room  in  the  new 
custom-house. 

Nov.  10,  1840.    Same  to  same,  suggests  to  him  the  propriety  of  asking  Congress  for  an  appro- 
priation to  furnish  the  new  custom-house. 
Nov.  13,  1840.    Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  in  reply. 

Dec.  12,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  enclosing  an  estimate  made  by  Mr.  Horspool,  for  furniture 

for  the  new  custom  house. 
Dec.  16,  1841.    Examination  of  Lester  Wilson,  referred  to  in  the  report. 
Dec.  12,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  relative  to  Price's  affairs. 

Dec  12,  1838.  Extract  of  Hoyt's  letter  to  Gilpin,  relative  to  Butler  not  receiving  his  fees — an 
amusing  extract. 

Dec.  12,  1838.  Examination  of  John  M.  Winant  and  J.  C.  Robinson,  on  the  subject  of  iron 
work. 

Correspondence  between  the  President,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  and  George  Poindexter. 

Oct.  23,  1841.  Governor  Poindexter  to  Walter  Forward. 

Oct.  25,  1841.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  Governor  Poindexter. 

Nov.  12,  1841.  George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Nov.  13,  1841.  Same  to  the  President. 


INDEX.  ili 

Nov.  15,  1841.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  George  Poindexter. 

Nov.  20,  1841.  George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Nov.  20,  1841.  Walter  Forward  to  the  commissioners. 

Nov.  22,  1841.  George  Poindexter  to  the  President. 

Nov.  24,  1841.  George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Nov.  30,  1841.  Same  to  same. 

Dec.  12,  1841.  Same  to  the  President. 

Dec.  14,  1841.  Same  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Dec,  17,  1841.  Same  to  same. 

Dec.  23,  1841.  Secretary  to  Governor  Poindexter. 

Dec.  26,  1841.  George  Poindexter  to  the  President. 

Dec.  27,  1841.  Same  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jan.    6,  1842.  Secretary  to  George  Poindexter. 

Jan.    7,  1842.  Secretary  to  George  Poindexter. 

Jan.    8,  1842.  George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary. 

Jan.  11,  1842.  Same  to  same. 

Jan.  23,  1842.  Same  to  same. 

Feb.  5,  1842.  S.tmc  to  the  President. 

Feb.  8,  1842.  The  President  to  George  Poindexter. 

Feb.   9,  1842.  George  Poindexter  to  the  President. 

Feb.  11,  1842.  The  President  to  George  Poindexter. 

Mar.  23,  1842.  George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary. 

Correspondence  between  George  Poindexter,  William  A.  Bradley,  and  W.  M.  Steuart. 

Dec.  13,  1841.    William  M.  Steuart  and  William  A.  Bradley  to  George  Poindexter,  calling  on 

him  for  the  books  and  original  papers,  or  copies  of  them. 
Dec.  15,  1841.     George  Poindexter,  in  reply  to  William  M.  Steuart  and  William  A.  Bradley. 
Dec.  18,  1841.     Steuart  and  Bradley  to  George  Poindexter,  on  same  subject,  &c. 
Dec.  19,  1841.    George  Poindexter  to  William  A.  Bradley,  in  reply. 

Dec.  20,  1841.  George  Poindexter  to  Messrs.  Steuart  and  Bradley,  relative  to  original  papers, 
being  on  the  files  of  the  Secretary — and  such  as  were  not,  to  be  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  secretaries  of  the  board,  who  are  responsible  for  the  safe  delivery 
of  said  papers,  &c,  to  the  commissioners,  on  their  meeting  at  the  Treasury 
Department. 

Correspondence  relative  to  La  Chaise  4"  Fouche^  and  De  Casse,  Miege,  4-  Co. 

May  12,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price,  relative  to  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  ;  frauds  on  the  revenue. 
May  14,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price,  relative  to  La  Chaise  &  Fouche;  causes  them  to  be  arrested  for 
perjury. 

May  18,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price,  relative  to  bringing  De  Casse  to  justice. 

May  18,  1838.  Hoyt  to  Price,  to  suspend  proceedings  for  one  day  against  De  Casse,  Miege, 
&  Co. 

May  26,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  relative  to  the  seizure  of  goods. 
May  30,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price,  relative  to  goods  taken  from  the  store  of  La  Chaise  &  Fouche. 
July  26,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price  ;  sends  him  the  bonds  of  La  Chaise  &  Fouche. 
Oct.  10,  183S.    Price  to  Hoyt ;  wishes  a  description  of  goods  under  seizure,  belonging  to  De 

Casse,  Miege,  &,  Co.,  and  La  Chaise  &  Fouche. 
Oct.  11,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price;  his  answer  to  the  same. 

Oct.  20,  1833.  Hoyt  to  Price;  statement  of  Mr.  Cutting  concerning  him,  touching  an  agree- 
ment with  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  and  La  Chaise  &  Fouche. 

Oct.  22,  1S38.  Hoyt  to  Price,  relative  to  the  seizure  of  Lachaise  &  Fouche's  goods.  Testi- 
mony is  :  Campbell  and  Davis. 

Oct.  23,  1838.  Hoyt  to  Price,  enclosing  the  correspondence  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. ;  their 
frauds,  Sec. 

Dec.  21,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Butler,  relative  to  inspectors  seizing  the  goods  of  La  Chaise  Sc  Fouche, 

asking  his  opinion  "  whether  they  have  the  right  to  open  the  box  and  use  the 

papers,  as  the  case  may  require." 
May  25,  1839.     Hoyt  to  naval  officer  and  surveyor,  proposing  compromise  with  La  Chaise  & 

Fouche,  for  $45,500;  important  letter. 
Aug.  10,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Read,  Philadelphia,  relative  to  three  packages  of  goods  of  De  Casse, 

Miege,  &  Co. ;  despatches  Wasson,  a  special  deputy,  to  look  after  the  matter. 
Sept.    7,  1839.    Hoyt  to  the  clerk  of  the  eastern  district  court  of  Pennsylvania,  relative  to  the 

sale  of  the  goods  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 


IV 


INDEX. 


Sept.  30,  1839.  Hoyt  to  George  Wolt,  collector  of  Philadelphia,  relative  to  the  forfeiture  in  the 
cage  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.;  «  other  parties  claim  distributive  shares." 

Oct.  30,  1839.  Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  touching  a  discrepancy  between  the  reports  from  his  office  and 
that  of  the  district  attorney,  concerning  the  property  seized  in  the  store  of 
La  Chaise  &  Fouche. 

Nov.  28,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Butler,  recommends  suits  to  be  discontinued  between  the  United  States 

and  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. ;  an  important  letter. 
Feb.    7,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Butler,  doubting  the  correctness  of  the  bond  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 
June   6,  1840.    Same  to  same,  relative  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.  ;  thinks  it  expedient  to 

take  proceedings  against  them  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  to 

recover  forfeiture  ;  holds  the  parties  to  bruil  for  $20,000. 
July  28,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Butler,  relative  to  free  goods  entered  by  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. ; 

wishes  them  declared  forfeited  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799. 
Sept.  28,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Read,  Philadelphia,  consenting  to  the  "share  of  the  informer  tube 

paid  to  him"  on  the  goods  seized  in  Philadelphia,  belonging  to  De  Casse, 

Miege,  &  Co. 

Correspondence  relative  to  Bottomly1  s  goods. 

April  23,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price,  wishes  him  to  proceed  with  all  despatch  against  J.  Bottomly, 

jr.'s  goods,  as  forfeited. 
April  23,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price,  on  the  same  subject. 
April  25,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Read,  Philadelphia,  on  the  same  subject. 
April  26,  183S.    Read  to  Hoyt,  in  reply  to  his  of  the  25th,  same  subject. 

April  26,  1838.  Hoyt  to  Williams,  Baltimore,  requesting  him  to  seize  Bottomly's  goods,  at 
Hoffman's  and  Taylor's  auction  stores. 

April  26,  1838     Hoyt  to  Read,  Philadelphia,  making  inquiry  relative  to  Bottomly's  goods. 

April  27,  1838.  Hoyt  to  Read,  giving  instructions  to  hold  Bottomly  to  bail,  &c,  and  also  con- 
cerning French  goods. 

April  27,  1838.  Hoyt  to  Williams,  to  hold  Bottomly  to  bail ;  wishes  him  to  seize  his  goods,  &c. 
April  27,  1838.    Samuel  D.  Patterson,  marshal  of  the  eastern  district  of  Pennsylvania,  to  Hoyl, 

relative  to  Bottomly's  goods,  desiring  some  one  to  identify  them. 
April  27,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Patterson,  directing  arrest  of  Bottomly. 
April  28,  1838.    Hoyl  to  Williams,  Baltimore,  ordering  seizure  of  Bottomly's  goods. 
April  28,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Read,  despatching  Wasson  to  look  after  Bottomly's  goods. 
April  28,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Patterson,  on  same  subject;  Wasson  sent  to  Philadelphia. 
April  28,  1838.    Patterson  to  Hoyt,  stating  inability  to  find  Bottomly.    Postscript  from  J.  M. 

Read,  United  Slates  district  attorney. 
April  28,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Wasson  ;  commissions  him  to  seize  Bottomly's  goods,  &c. 
April  30,  1838.    Williams  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  Bottomly's  goods,  &c. 

May     4,  1838.    Williams  to  Hoyt,  regretting  that  he  has  not  been  able  to  effect  any  disclosures. 

June  11,  1838.  Hoyt  to  Price;  goods  to  be  delivered  to  Bottomly,  on  his  giving  bond  for  the  ap- 
praised value  ;  order  from  the  court. 

June  12,  1838.  Price  to  Hoyt,  requesting  hiin  to  let  Wasson  attend  the  examination,  take  sam- 
ples, &c,  of  Bottomly's  goods. 

June  15,  1840.  Hoyt  to  Bancroft,  relative  to  the  division  of  the  fees  arising  out  of  the  seizure  of 
goods  belonging  to  J.  Bottomly,  jr. 

Aug.  6,  1838.  Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  frauds  practised  at  his  office,  on  entry  of  woollen 
goods,  &c. 

Aug.  9,  1838.  Woodbury  to  Hoyt ;  thanks  him  for  theinformation  given  in  his  letter  of  the  6th 
instant;  tells  him  to  write  to  the  collector  at  Liverpool,  England,  in  reference 
to  the  frauds  practised  there;  get  his  good  offices  in  return,  <fcc. 

Sept.  22,  1838.  Hoyt  to  Price,  relative  to  Bottomly's  being  guilty  of  bribery  and  perjury  at  the 
custom-house. 

Oct.  25,  1838.    Hoyt  to  Price,  giving  a  schedule  of  goods  shipped  by  James  Bottomly,  jr., 

names  of  ships,  &c. 

Dec    1,  1838.     Hoyt  to  Bancroft,  collector,  Boston,  relative  to  Bottomly's  trial,  &c;  he  did 
not  appear,  and  his  bonds  were  forfeited;  "  has  no  doubt  of  his  guilt,  but 
the  difficulty  is  in  establishing  it  by  competent  proof  "  an  important  letter. 
May  29,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Butler;  wishes  him  to  return  the  papers  relative  to  Bottomly's  case- 
May  31,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  giving  a  full  report  of  the  seizure  cases  of  Bottomly  and  others. 
Julv  22,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Sidney  Bartlett,  counsellor  at  law,  Boston;  very  important  letter,  rela- 
tive to  the  indictment  of  Bottomly,  his  trial,  &c.    "  Campbell's  being  ready 
to  make  any  statement,  without  reference  to  the  truth.'' 
Aug-  22,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Read;  "Thinks  the  judge  is  very  unreasonable  for  wishing  him  to 
swear  to  that  which  he  cannot  by  any  possibility  know." 


INDEX. 


v 


Aug.  23,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Read  ;  sends  Cairns  and  Wasson  on  to  Philadelphia,  to  take  a  further 

look  at  the  matter. 
Sept.  30,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Butler,  relative  to  Bottomly's  goods. 

Oct.  17,  1839.    F.  B.  Ogden,  consul  at  Liverpool,  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  Bottomly  and  others. 
Sept.  23,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  protest  fund. 
Oct.  29,  1839.    Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  on  the  same  subject. 
Oct.  31,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  same  subject. 
Oct.  31,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  same  subject. 

Nov.  1 1,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  same,  with  a  schedule  of  the  number  of  suits  against  him. 
Nov.  19,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  counsel  fees  in  his  own  cases. 
Nov.  19,  1839.    Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  in  answer  to  his  of  the  1 1th  instant. 

Nov.  23,  1839.    Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  in  answer  to  his  of  the  19th  instant,  relative  to  his  suits,  &c, 
Dec.  21,  1839.    Hoyt  to  VVoodbury,  enclosing  a  newspaper  refuting  the  charge  against  him 
as  a  defaulter;  requesting  him  to  state  "whether  he  is  or  ever  has  been  a 
defaulter." 
Dec.  24,  1839.     Woodbury's  answer. 

Feb     7,  1840.    Woodbury  to  Barker,  Comptroller,  relative  to  protest  fund. 
Jan.   22,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Williams,  relative  to  William  Bottomly's  case  ;  sends  Cairns  and  Was- 
son on  to  Baltimore,  to  swear  under  the  act  of  1830. 
Oct.    7,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Butler,  relative  to  William  Bottomly ;  his  oath  and  letter  dated  31st 
December,  1839,  with  a  memorandum  "marked  in  pencil  by  Mr.  Wasson." 

Jan.  12,  1841.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  goods  destroyed  by  fire ;  act  of  Congress  relative 
to  the  same. 

Jan.  16,  1841.    Hoyt  to  Williams,  relative  to  cases  before  the  Supreme  Court  at  Washington. 
Feb.    1,  1841.     Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  on  the  subject  of  his  decision  relative  to  protest  fund,  &c, 
Feb.    1,  1841.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  abstracting  goods. 
Feb.  22,  1841.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  resigning  his  office. 
Jan.    4,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  Judge  Story's  opinion. 

Feb.    2,  1839.     Woodbury  to  Hoyt;  requests  him  to  deposite  $200,000  in  the  Bank  of  America, 

to  the  special  credit  of  the  Treasurer. 
Feb.    5,  1839.    Hoyt's  reply. 
Feb.    7,  1839.    Woodbury's  reply. 
Feb.  1  1,  1839.    Hoyt's  reply. 

Feb.  12,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Secretary,  on  subject  of  protest  fund. 
Feb.  14,  1839.    Secretary's  reply. 
Feb.  18,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Secretary,  on  same  subject. 
Feb.  19,  1839.     Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  Treasurer's  drafts. 
Feb.  19,  1839.     Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  in  reply  lo  his  letter  of  the  18th  instant. 
Mar.  25,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury  ;  receipt  of  circular  from  Comptroller,  in  relation  to  clerks? 
salaries. 

Mar.  26,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  enclosing  a  letter  from  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor. 
Mar  28,  1839.     VVoodbury  to  Hoyt,  in  reply  to  his  letters  of  the  25th  and  26th  instant. 
May    1,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  compensation  to  Wasson  and  Cairns. 
May    3,  1839.    Woodbury's  reply. 

May    8,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  enclosing  the  opinion  of  the  district  attorney,  in  relation  ta 

the  appointment  of  markers  or  deputy  inspectors. 
July  10,  1839.    Hoyt  to  appraisers,  requesting  Cairns  should  be  placed  in  the  woollens  loft. 
Aug.   9,  18:59.    Butler  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  appraisements. 

Aug.  12,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Butler,  requesting  him  not  to  bring  the  appraisers  before  the  public. 
Sept.   4,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Frick,  collector,  Baltimore,  relative  to  seizure  of  goods  of  manufacturers' 
Sept.   7,  1839.     Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  in  relation  to  increase  of  officers'  fees. 
Sept.  24,  1839.     Hoyt  to  Wolf;  sends  seventy-one  bonds  of  Post,  Gibson,  &  Post. 
Oct.     1,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  labor  and  cartage. 

Sept.  18,  1839.    C.  W.  Dayton  to  Hoyt;  requests  that  John  Taylor,  jr.,  may  be  permitted  to- 

return  and  settle  his  business. 
Sept.  22,  1839.    Same  to  same,  on  same  subject. 

Nov.  19,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  suits  against  John  Taylor,  jr.,  and  others. 
Dec.  12,  1839.    Hoyt  to  Williams,  United  States  district  attorney,  Baltimore,  giving  his  views 

in  relation  to  the  goods  of  Bottomly  and  John  Taylor,  jr. 
May  25,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Williams;  subpoenaed  to  Baltimore  in  the  case  of  John  Taylor,  jr. 
Feb.  22,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Randolph,  acting  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  relative  to  drafts. 
Feb.  24,  1840.    Randolph's  reply. 

Feb.  28,  1S40.    Hoyt  to  Randolph  ;  moneys  in  the  hands  of  the  collector  in  the  Treasury  ;  has  no 

confidence  in  the  system  of  keeping  accounts  in  Treasury  Department. 
Feb.  26,  1840.    Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  goods  saved  from  fire. 


vi  INDEX. 


Mar.    2,  1840.    Hoyt's  reply. 

May   7,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Butler,  relative  to  twilled  sacking. 
May  20,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Williams. 
June  20,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Cadwalader;  disappointment  in  Judge  Heath's  decision  ;  thinks  we  can 

beat  them  before  a  jury. 
July    2,  1840.    Hoyt  to  President;  recommends  Cairns  as  a  principal  appraiser. 
Aug.  29,  1840.    Hoyt  to  Secretary,  on  the  subject  of  duties  forming  a  part  of  the  penalty,  and 

retaining  them  as  such. 

Sepl.  7,  1840.  Hoyt  to  Butler,  relative  to  the  arrangement  of  cases  in  which  Cairns  is  a  witness. 
Sept.  7,  1840.    Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  on  the  subject  of  furniture  for  the  new  custom-house. 


hoi 


Rep.  No.  669. 


19& 


APPENDIX. 


A. 

Philadelphia,  May  1,  1838. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  arrived  here  at  2  o'clock,  from  Baltimore,  after  an  unsuc- 
cessful search  for  Bottomly  and  his  goods.  I  spent  yesterday  in  searching 
the  city,  but  could  find  nothing  that  I  could  in  the  least  degree  identify. 
I  find  no  letter  to  me  from  you,  but  the  district  attorney  informs  me  he  has 
received  two  in  my  absence,  which  he  gave  to  the  marshal.  I  am  to  see 
him  at  4  o'clock,  and  shall  spend  the  remainder  of  the  day  in  making  all 
the  investigations  in  my  power,  and,  if  I  find  nothing  to  detain  me  longer^ 
shall  return  in  the  first  cars  to-morrow.  They  have  as  yet  discovered 
nothing  here,  as  the  attorney  informs  me,  and  I  fear  we  shall  not.  r\  he 
rascals  have  had  sense  enough  pretty  effectually  to  cover  their  trails,  I 
believe. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

GEORGE  A.  WASSON. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq. 


On  board  steamboat  for  Baltimore, 

Half  past  7  o'clock,  Sunday  morning. 
Sir  i  On  my  arrival  last  night  at  Philadelphia  I  found  the  boat  this  morn- 
ing at  a  quarter  before  7  was  the  only  conveyance  for  Baltimore  to-dav- 
Accordingly,  I  sallied  out  at  5,  and  with  great  difficulty  found  Mr.  Read,, 
the  district  attorney.  He  informed  me  that  he  had  been  unable  to  find  any 
of  the  goods  reported  by  you  to  him;  took  some  further  memorandums 
from  my  papers,  to  aid  his  further  searches  to-morrow  morning,  and  ad- 
vised me  to  proceed  to  Baltimore.  If,  on  my  arrival  there,  I  can  find 
nothing  to  warrant  delay,  shall  return  by  the  first  conveyance;  at  all 
events,  shall  probably  be  in  Philadelphia  again  by  to-morrow  evening.  Wiii 
write  you  from  Baltimore  if  I  am  delayed. 

Yours,  &c. 

GEORGE  A.  WASSON. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq. 


Left  New  York  at  5  P.  M.,  Saturday,  28th  April;  arrived  In  Philadel- 
phia at  2  A.  M. ;  called  on  Samuel  D.  Patterson,  district  attorney,  at  (>  A. 
M.,  of  29th  ;  learned  from  him  that  he  had  been  unable  to  get  any  infor- 
mation on  the  subjects  of  the  inquiries  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  relative  to  the  goods 
of  Bottomly,  De  Casse,  &  M.,  or  La  Chaise  &  Fouche,  and, by  his  advice,  I 
proceeded  immediately  on  to  Baltimore,  where  I  arrived  at  2  P.  M. :  called 
on  Nathaniel  Williams.  Esq.:  found  him  anxious  to  render  me  every  as- 
1* 


196 


Rep.  No.  669. 


sistance  in  searching  for  Bottomly's  goods,  he  having,  previously  to  my 
arrival,  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  marshal  a  warrant  for  his  arrest;  with 
Mr.  Williams,  called  on  Messrs.  Hoffman  &  Co.,  and  found  them  free  to 
communicate  all  their  knowledge  of  Bottomly  and  his  business.  They 
have  probably  been  his  only  agents  here  for  more  than  a  year  past :  have 
sold  for  him  large  amounts  of  goods  ;  made  the  last  sale  for  him,  in  which 
they  closed  all  his  goods,  on  the  17th  instant,  cashed  the  sales,  and  remit- 
ted him  the  proceeds.  From  the  frank  manner  of  the  Messrs.  Hoffman, 
in  answering  all  my  questions,  and  from  the  assurance  of  Mr.  Williams, 
and  of  the  collector,  Mr.  Frick,  of  their  high  respectability  and  integrity,  I 
feel  satisfied  they  gave  me  all  the  information  respecting  Bottomly  that  was 
necessary  for  the  purposes  of  my  visit ;  called  on  Robert  A.  Taylor  &:  Co., 
auctioneers  ;  were  satisfied,  from  their  statements,  that  they  had  never  acted 
as  the  agents  of  Bottomly,  and  had  reason  to  believe  that  they  had  not,  and 
that  they  had  none  of  his  goods  in  their  possession.  We  were  informed 
that  the  house  of  Henry  Bedell  &  Co.  probably  had  some  of  his  goods, 
and  were  desired  to  go  there  and  search  their  premises.  We  did  so,  but 
could  find  nothing  I  could  identify  as  the  goods  of  Bottomly,  although  they 
had  a  very  large  stock  of  cloths  on  their  shelves,  but  very  few  in  cases,  and 
those  of  other  marks  than  the  ones  I  was  seeking.  In  their  store  I  found 
B  976,  977,  989,  1,024,  1,048,  c  1,051,  1,137,  c  1,137,  and  15  small  bales 
of  worsted  goods,  which  they  represented  to  belong  to  Thomas  Beakley,  of 
New  York.  Though  these  goods  came  within  the  mark  and  numbers  of 
some  of  Bottomly's  goods,  yet,  being  a  free  article,  and  so  unlike  the  goods 
we  were  in  search  of,  we  did  not  take  them.  Bottomly  formerly  used 
this  house  as  his  agents,  but  ieft  them  on  account  of  a  misunderstanding 
some  months  since,  and,  as  we  were  informed  by  themselves  and  others, 
had,  for  a  length  of  time  past,  only  employed  the  house  of  Hoffman  &  Co. 
I  found  that  William  Bottomly,  the  brother  of  James,  arrived  in  Baltimore 
on  Friday,  the  27th,  but  I  could  not  get  a  sight-of  him,  though  we  both 
stopped  at  Barnum's,  and  neither  could  I  team  the  object  of  his  visit. 
John  Taylor,  jr.  arrived  in  Baltimore  on  the  28th,  and  left  on  the  29th,  on 
his  return.  I  was  shown  a  letter,  by  Mr.  Williams,  from  Mr.  Lawrence, 
of  Boston,  to  a  house  in  Baltimore,  advising  them  of  the  frauds,  and  that 
a  quantity  of  goods  belonging  to  one  of  the.  New  York  Yorkshire  men  had 
been  seized  there,  and  recommended  that  all  goods  in  Baltimore  that 
were  suspected  as  belonging  to  any  of  them  be  immediately  taken.  Mr. 
Williams's  opinion  accorded  fully  with  my  own,  that,  in  the  absence  of  all 
proof  to  identify  goods  out  of  the  cases,  nothing  could  be  gained  by  this 
step,  although  he  is  very  desirous  to  ferret  out  the  frauds,  if  possible,  and 
will  lose  no  opportunity  that  may  offer  of  doing  so.  Returned  to  Phila- 
delphia on  Tuesday,  1st  of  May  ;  saw  the  attorney,  marshal,  and  collector. 
They  had  been  unable  to  find  any  thing  pertaining  to  the  frauds.  With 
the  deputy  marshal,  I  examined  the  stores  of  Davies,  Stevenson,  &  Co., 
and  S.  C.  &  J.  Ford,  but  could  find  nothing.  The  latter  house  referred  me 
to  Hemesly  &  Co.,  who  have,  for  a  year  past,  been  the  agents  of  Bottomly; 
found  some  cases  of  Bottomly's  mark,  but  not  a  piece  of  goods — he  having, 
as  they  stated,  taken  from  them,  about  ten  days  since,  all  his  goods  that 
were  then  in  their  possession,  without  assigning  any  reason  satisfactory  to 
them.  • 

1  could  not  get  any  information  of  the  goods  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co., 


Rep.  No.  669. 


197 


or  Lachaise  &  Fouche ;  saw  one  empty  case  marked    ^   in  the  store  of 

Davies,  Stevenson,  &  Co.,  who  remarked  that  it  was  a  very  common  mark, 
and  probably  well  known  to  me,  from  which  I  infer  that  De  Casse's  goods 
are  always  sold  under  that  mark.    They  appeared  not  to  know  any  thing- 

about  the 

The  marshal  informed  me  that,  from  the  Union  Line  books,  he  learned 
that  some  goods  arrived  in  Philadelphia,  within  the  last  ten  days,  consigned 
to  De  Casse  &  Miege,  but  could  not  learn  that  they  had  any  house  there. 
Returned  to  New  York  May  2d. 

G.  A.  W. 


B. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  May  26,  1340. 

Sir  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  covering  a  copy 
of  questions  propounded  by  the  standing  committee  of  the  House  of  Rep- 
resentatives on  the  Expenditures  in  the  Department  of  the  Treasury, 
which  you  supposed  could  be  ieadily  answered  by  reference  to  the  records 
of  this  office.    The  questions  referred  to  are  as  follows  : 

1st.  "What  number  of  seizures  has  been  made  by  the  collector  since  the 
1st  of  January,  1838,  and  for  what  cause  in  each  case  ?" 

2d.  "What  number  have  been  decided,  upon  trial,  in  favor  of  the  United 
States,  and  what  number  released,  and  the  amount  in  each  case  ?" 

3d.  "  What  amount  of  duties  has  been  refunded  by  virtue  of  judicial 
decisions  ?" 

4th.  "  What  has  been  the  cost  to  the  United  States  of  those  seizures  ; 
what  amount  of  fees  paid  to  the  district  attorney,  and  to  the  collector,  on 
account  of  suits  for  seizures?" 

In  reply  to  such  questions,  I  now  send  you— 

1st.  A  return,  marked  A,  which  answers  the  first,  second,  and  fourth 
questions.  In  the  latter  I  notice  the  words  "  fees  paid  to  the  district  attor- 
ney and  to  the  collector,  on  account  of  suits  for  seizures."  I  assume  by 
"fees  to  the  collector"  is  meant  his  share  of  forfeitures  arising  from  seiz- 
ures. In  no  other  sense  can  the  term  fees"  have  any  meaning  :  for  he 
has  not  received,  and  could  not  rightfully  receive,  any  fees,"  in  the  com- 
mon acceptation  of  the  word,  from  any  suits  brought  or  defended  by  him. 
The  return  referred  to  will  therefore  show  the  whole  amount  of  the  share 
of  the  forfeitures  I  have  received  since  I  have  held  the  office  of  collector. 

The  first  question  requires  me  to  report  from  the  1st  of  January.  1338. 
I  came  into  office  on  the  29th  of  March,  of  that  year,  and  I  have  not  gone 
beyond  that  period,  for  two  reasons  : 

1st.  Because  I  did  not  think  it  was  the  intention  of  the  committee  to 
call  upon  me  to  report  as  to  the  action,  in  this  respect,  of  my  predecessor 
in  office. 

2d.  If  that  was  the  intention,  I  have  not  the  power  to  comply  with  the 
call,  for  the  reason  that  there  is  no  record  in  this  office  that  would  enable 
me  to  answer  the  inquiries. 

I  have,  in  other  respects,  endeavored  to  give  such  an  interpretation  to 
the  questions,  by  the  answers  I  have  made,  as  to  convey  to  the  commute 


198 


Rep.  No.  669. 


the  information  I  supposed  they  desired  to  possess ;  and  therefore  I  hav<j»y 
in  reply  to  the  first  question,  stated,  in  one  column,  a  reference  to  the  sev- 
eral duty  acts  under  which  informations  alleging  the  cause  of  forfeiture 
are  usually  formed ;  and,  in  addition  to  which,  I  have  prepared  an  appen- 
dix to  the  cases  where  the  United  States  have  failed  to  condemn  the  goods, 
containing  a  short  abstract  of  the  facts  which  I  supposed  not  only  autho- 
rized but  compelled  me  to  make  the  seizures. 

You  will  notice  that  a  great  many  cases  remain  untried,  which  is  owing 
to  the  fact  of  commissions  having  been  sued  out  by  the  claimants  to  take 
testimony  in  Europe,  some  of  which  have  not  yet  been  returned,  and  oth- 
ers have  not  been  long  enough  to  enable  the  counsel  to  prepare  for  trial  ■ 
and  for  the  further  reason  of  the  time  of  the  judge  of  the  district  court 
having  been  some  months  occupied  in  circuit  court  duties. 

You  will  also  notice  that  much  the  largest  number  of  seizures  are  of 
woollen  goods,  and  that  they  were  made  in  a  comparatively  short  time,  in 
the  summer  of  the  last  year.  As  early  as  April,  of  that  year,  I  informed 
you  that  I  was  not  satisfied  that  I  had  corrected  the  gross  abuse  that  I 
found  prevailing  in  the  department  in  reference  to  the  entries  of  the  kind 
of  goods  referred  to  ;  and  the  better  to  satisfy  myself  on  that  subject,  and 
to  carry  out  the  views  expressed  to  me  by  several  merchants  in  whom  I 
then  had  confidence,  I  ordered  all  the  woollens  imported  in  the  ship  Inde- 
pendence, which  arrived  about  that  time,  to  the  appraiser's  store,  for  ex- 
amination ;  and  that,  in  order  to  test  the  accuracy  of  the  judgment  and 
knowledge  of  the  appraisers,  I  had  employed  Mr.  John  Robinson,  an  im- 
porter, highly  recommended  by  the  merchants  referred  to,  to  attend  at  the 
appraiser's  store,  and  assist  them  in  the  examination.  He  did  attend  for 
the  period  of  sixteen  days,  but  without  any  beneficial  result  to  the  United 
States  ;  and  it  was  not  until  the  month  of  July  following  that  I  discovered 
I  had  made  a  mistake  in  the  selection  of  the  individual  recommended  to 
me.  I  had  adopted  the  suggestion  of  the  merchants,  without  effecting  any 
essential  improvement  in  the  evils  complained  of,  when  I  deemed  it  essen- 
tially necessary  to  take  some  other  course.  I  therefore  put,  permanently, 
a  gentleman  in  the  woollens  loft,  whose  knowledge  and  experience  I  con- 
fided in,  to  aid  the  appraisers  in  their  examinations.*  I  also  came  to  the 
determination,  the  more  effectually  to  break  up  the  system  of  defrauding 
the  revenue,  to  seize  every  piece  of  woollen  goods  that  was  put  up  fifteen 
per  cent,  above  the  invoice,  by  the  appraisers,  provided  the  appraisement 
was  sustained  by  the  merchant  appraisers.  In  fixing  the  standard  of  fifteen 
per  cent.,  I  had  reference  to  a  difference  in  the  skill  of  purchasers,  and  the 
errors  in  judgment  in  estimating  value. 

I  perserved  in  this  system,  with  much  uniformity,  until  it  was  perfectly 
manifest  that  I  had  no  essential  support  in  my  efforts  from  the  commu- 
nity, ivhether  I  looked  for  that  support  through  the  pu  blic  press,  the  ju- 
rors, or  the  general  trading  classes.  It  occurred  to  me,  then,  that  a  change 
in  the  course  I  had  adopted  might  promote  the  interest  of  the  United  States  ; 
therefore  I  concluded  that  I  would  thereafter,  in  case  of  entries  of  woollens 
that  were  put  up  above  the  invoice  value,  permit  the  entry  to  be  completed 
on  the  importers'  paying  the  duty  on  the  appraised  value.  I  now  send  you 
a  list  of  those  cases,  (marked  B,)  showing  the  duty  on  the  invoice  value,  and 
also  on  the  appraised  value.  Some  of  the  entries  being  now  in  Philadel- 
phia and  Baltimore,  as  evidence  to  be  used  there,  I  cannot  give  the  amount 
of  duties  on  all  of  them.    Whether  I  had  the  discretion  to  adopt  this  course, 


*  William  Cairns. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


199 


you  will  he  able  to  decide.  That  the  trading  classes  were  violently  op- 
posed to  the  other  system  is  quite  certain,  as  well  from  the  language  of 
the  commercial  newspapers  as  from  the  declarations  of  individuals,  the 
most  prominent  of  which  was  that  made  in  the  grand  jury  room,  by  one 
-of  the  jurors,  to  whom  I  had  addressed  a  complaint  against  a  large  im- 
porter, for  perjury  at  the  custom-house,  and  for  altering  papers,  so  as  to 
make  it  forgery,  and  which  was,  "  that  it  would  be  unfair  to  indict  one 
merchant,  for  doing  no  more  than  what  all  the  merchants  did."  The  bill 
was  thrown  out,  and,  in  a  more  recent  case,  a  forgery  was  committed  at 
this  office  by  Thomas  Wood,  jr.,  and  for  which  another  grand  jury,  com- 
posed almost  wholly  of  merchants,  refused  to  find  a  bill. 

This  state  of  feeling  in  the  community  is  my  apology  for  changing  the 
•course  I  had  determined  to  pursue. 

It  may  be  said,  and  perhaps  with  truth,  that  if  the  only  risk  an  importer 
runs  in  undervaluing  his  goods  is  the  paying  of  duty  on  the  excess  over 
the  invoice  ascertained  by  appraisement,  he  will  experiment  on  the  sub- 
ject, take  his  chance  of  escape,  which,  in  the  hurry  of  business,  may  some- 
times happen  ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  if  newspapers  influence  the  public 
mind,  and  merchants  carry  their  prejudices  to  the  jury  box  to  such  an  ex- 
tent as  renders  it  next  to  impossible  to  procure  a  verdict  in  favor  of  the 
United  States  in  a  seizure  case,  what  are  the  officers  of  the  Government, 
who  are  sworn  to  execute  the  laws,  to  do,  in  order  to  fulfil  the  intention  of 
Congress  in  making  those  laws  ? 

These  are  considerations  that  may  be  properly  addressed  to  the  law 
makers.  We  have  had  many  instances  of  the  good  effects  of  the  action  of 
this  office  in  these  matters.  After  the  result  of  Mr.  Robinson's  assistance 
to  the  appraisers,  in  April,  1839,  the  woollen  importers  considered  they  had 
passed  the  only  ordeal  adverse  to  their  interests  which  they  had  to  en- 
counter. In  July  and  August  of  that  year  a  great  many  woollens  arrived, 
but  not  till  after  I  had  adopted  the  plan  of  seizing,  as  heretofore  referred 
to;  and  the  consequence  was,  the  goods  were  permitted  to  go  to  the  pub- 
lic store  on  general  order,  where  they  remained  until  new  invoices  could 
be  procured  from  England.  It  is  not  unfrequent  that  these  goods  are  now 
entered  upon  invoices  verified  in  England  months  after  the  goods  have 
been  in  public  store  here.  The  original  invoices  are  suppressed,  and  the 
duties  paid  on  the  new  ones.  We  suppose  the  goods  in  the  new  ones  are 
much  higher  charged  than  in  the  old  ones,  and  to  that  extent  there  is  a 
gain  to  the  revenue. 

In  the  return,  in  relation  to  these  matters,  I  have  not  included  the  seiz- 
ures in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore,  though  made  under  my  orders.  I 
have  not  sufficient  returns  from  them  to  enable  me  to  give  particulars. 
One  case  has  been  tried  in  Philadelphia,  when  there  was  a  verdict  for  the 
United  States.    I  believe  the  value  of  the  goods  is  about  $40,000. 

The  answer  to  the  third  question  will  be  fonnd  at  the  foot  of  return  A, 
by  which  it  appears  that  $1 65,465  07  have  been  refunded  by  me.  The 
claims  for  return  duties  under  judicial  decisions  are  now  very  large, 
and  are  only  waiting  the  action  of  Congress  and  the  Department  to  be  dis- 
posed of. 

There  are  still  a  good  many  suits  against  me,  that  are  yet  undecided. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Kep.  No.  669. 


(  No.  1.  ) 

These  259  pieces  of  cloth  were  imported  by  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  and 
were  seized  the  same  day  that  thirteen  packages  of  similar  goods  were  seized. 

The  importer  was  arrested  for  perjury  and  bribing  a  custom-house  officer; 
he  gave  bail,  and  then  fled  to  Canada,  and  from  thence  to  England,  where 
he  has  since  remained.  His  bail  bonds  were  forfeited  and  collected  ;  the 
pieces  were  retained  by  the  collector  till  the  packages  were  tried  and  con- 
demned by  the  verdict  of  a  jury.  On  examination  of  them,  it  appeared 
that  such  alterations  had  been  made  upon  the  tags,  since  the  importation, 
and  before  seizure,  that  it  was  impossible  to  identify  them  with  any  entry 
or  invoice,  and  therefore  the  proof  even  of  probable  cause  of  seizure 
could  not  be  obtained,  and  the  forfeiture  of  course  could  not  be  established. 
No  information  had  been  filed,  when  it  was  proposed  to  give  a  release  to 
the  seizing  officers,  if  the  goods  could  be  surrendered  ;  and  it  was  accord- 
ingly done,  and  the  act  sanctioned  by  the  Treasury  Department. 

(A.) 

This  was  an  importation  by  a  German  house,  under  the  name  of  E. 
Leon  &  Co.  The  invoice  was  raised  by  the  public  appraisers  from 
-8127  13.?.  9 d.  to  £191  175.  Id.  The  importer  appealed  from  that  ap- 
praisement, when  they  chose  one  merchant,  and  the  collector  another,, 
who  confirmed  the  original  appraisement. 

In  addition  to  this,  a  letter  was  put  into  the  hands  of  the  collector,  from 
Sheffield,  England,  in  relation  to  the'business  of  the  above  firm,  from  which 
the  following  is  an  extract  : 

"  P.  S.  Leon  must  have  invoiced  his  goods  from  Ashton  &  Jackson 
20  to  30  per  cent,  below  the  cost  prices,  but  not  at  his  prices." 

There  was  no  other  course  left  but  to  seize  the  goods.  The  cause  was 
tried,  and  the  goods  acquitted;  and,  as  the  collector  supposed,  more  from 
sympathy  of  jurwrs  and  witnesses  than  from  any  more  reasonable  grounds. 

(B.) 

The  importers  in  this  case  were  also  a  German  house,  under  the  firm  of 
A.  Deacon.  The  invoices  were  advanced  by  the  appraisers  from  70  to  100 
per  cent. 

There  were  papers  put  into  the  hands  of  the  collector,  showing  a  sys- 
tematic attempt  at  fraud  upon  the  revenue  ;  but  the  manner  in  which  the 
person  came  into  the  possession  of  the  papers,  who  gave  them  to  the  col- 
lector, prevented  him  from  using  or  referring  to  them. 

The  goods  were  acquitted  principally  upon  the  testimony  of  one  George 
A.  Schirpf,  a  Ger  r  an  importer,  who,  not  a  long  time  after  the  trial,  was 
detected  in  forging  the  name  of  a  deputy  collector  at  the  custom-house, 
who  was  arrested  for  the  crime,  gave  bail,  and  fled. 

The  verdict  of  the  jury  acquitting  the  goods  did  not  satisfy  the  collector 
that  he  committed  any  error,  or  act  of  imprudence  or  injustice,  in  seizing 
the  goods. 

(  C.  ) 

The  importers  in  this  case  were  a  French  house,  under  the  name  of  R. 
Morlot  &  Co.    The  glass  was  appraised  by  respectable  merchants,  in  ad- 


Rep.  No.  G69. 


201 


dition  to  public  appraisers,  100  per  cent,  over  the  invoices,  which  100  per 
cent,  corresponded  with  other  invoices  from  the  same  house  in  France, 
about  the  same  period  in  date. 

A  commission  was  sued  out  to  France  by  the  claimants,  and  the  proof 
taken  under  it  acquitted  the  goods  from  all  taint,  in  the  opinion  of  a  New 
York  jury,  though  the  correctness  of  the  original  appraisement  was  testi- 
fied to  by  men  of  unimpeachable  integrity  and  knowledge  of  the  subject. 

Some  points  of  law  were  raised  on  the  trial,  which  were  only  disposed 
of  a  few  days  since  against  the  United  States.  The  costs  of  the  proceeding 
have  not  yet  been  presented  or  paid. 

(D.) 

The  importers  in  this  case  were  a  German  house,  under  the  name  of 
Louis  &  Meyer.  The  appraisement,  as  will  be  seen,  was  about  30  per 
cent,  over  the  invoice,  and  was  made  by  two  merchants,  who  came  pas- 
sengers in  the  same  vessel  with  one  of  the  importers,  who  brought  the 
goods  with  him,  and  therefore  knew  the  value  of  the  articles  in  the  market 
abroad.  This,  however,  was  not  enough  to  satisfy  the  jury,  against  the 
testimony  of  various  German  gentlemen,  that  the  goods  ought  to  be  con- 
demned, and  they  were  therefore  acquitted. 

(E.) 

The  importers  in  this  case  were  a  German  house,  under  the  name  of 
Wolf  &  Henriques.  The  watches  were  consigned  to  them  for  sale,  I  think. 
They  were  examined  by  dealers  in  the  article  in  this  city,  and  put  up  about 
23  per  cent,  above  the  invoice.  A  commission  went  out  in  behalf  of  the 
claimants  to  Germany,  and  the  proof  taken  under  it  outweighed,  in  the 
minds  of  the  jury,  the  testimony  of  the  United  States  on  this  side  the 
water,  though  that  testimony  consisted  of  persons  who  had,  for  many 
years,  imported  watches  from  every  principal  manufactory  in  Europe. 

(F.) 

This  was  an  importation  by  Kobbe  &  Co.,  also  a  German  house.  The 
appraisement  was  100  per  cent,  over  the  invoice.  Complaints  were  made 
to  the  collector,  by  dealers  in  the  article,  that  frauds  were  committed  in  the 
importations,  and  a  seizure  was  made.  The  jury  were  satisfied,  as  their 
verdict  evinced,  that  the  transaction  was  a  fair  one.  The  collector  thought 
otherwise  then,  and  does  so  now. 

(G.) 

This  purported  to  be  an  importation  by  Spies,  Crist,  &  Co..  The  ap- 
praisement, made  by  dealers  in  the  article,  put  the  value  at  130  per  cent, 
above  the  invoice.  The  latter  was  made  out  in  New  York,  and  not  in 
Germany,  where  the  goods  purported  to  come  from.  There  were  other 
circumstances  that  induced  the  collector  to  suspect  the  integrity  of  the 
transaction,  but  it  was  all  made  perfectly  satisfactory  to  the  jury,  or  they 
would  not  have  acquitted  the  goods  by  their  verdict. 


202 


Kep.  No.  669. 


(H.) 

This  was  an  importation  by  Harvey  &  Stagg,  who  were  consignees  of 
an  English  house.  The  goods  were  entered  as  "  worsted,"  a  free  article, 
and  they  turned  out  to  be  "  worsted  and  cotton,"  subject  to  a  duty  of  25 
per  cent.  It  was  proved  on  the  trial,  by  persons  importing  similar  goods, 
that  the  correct  name  of  the  article  was  "  worsted  stuff." 

The  consignees  took  the  owner's  oath,  though  they  were  not  owners,  and 
their  counsel  contended  that  this  was  the  practice.  The  jury  considered  it 
all  fair,  and  found  a  verdict  of  acquittal.  The  district  attorney  took  excep- 
tions to  the  ruling  of  the  court,  which  is  not  yet  disposed  of;  and  the  costs, 
therefore,  have  not  been  rendered. 

(I.) 

The  importers  in  this  case  were  Messrs.  D.  Madden  &  Co.,  consignees 
of  English  manufacturers.  The  entry  was  for  worsted  shawls,  a  free 
article,  and  they  turned  out  to  be  cotton  and  worsted,  subject  to  25  per 
cent.  duty.  No  imputation  rested,  or  could  fairly  rest,  upon  the  consignees ; 
but  the  collector  supposed  that  it  might  prove  a  wholesome  lesson  to  the 
owners  in  reference  to  their  future  transactions  with  this  country  to  seize 
the  goods,  and  he  therefore  seized  them. 

The  jury,  by  their  verdict  of  acquittal,  seemed  to  consider  it  quite  gra- 
tuitous in  the  collector  to  undertake  to  play  the  schoolmaster  in  this  respect. 

(J.) 

This  was  a  seizure  of  a  package  of  goods  entered  by  Hall  &.  Brothers  for 
export — the  first  and  only  seizure  of  the  kind  made  by  the  present  collector 
of  New  York.  He  is  satisfied  that  great  frauds  have  been  practised  in  the 
export  business.  He  supposed  a  seizure  of  that  kind  would  be  productive 
of  great  benefit  to  the  revenue  and  the  fair  trader  ;  but,  as  the  jury  acquit- 
ted the  goods,  the  collector  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  "  fair  trader" 
did  not  wish  his  interference  for  his  protection,  and  he  is  not  certain  that  his 
efforts  to  protect  the  revenue  meets  the  entire  concurrence  of  that  class  of 
citizens. 

(K.  ) 

The  invoice  in  this  case  was  raised  about  25  per  cent,  by  merchant  ap- 
praisers. There  were  other  very  suspicious  circumstances  connected  with 
the  transaction  ;  but  a  commission  was  sent  out  to  Germany,  which,  satis- 
factorily to  the  jury,  removed  all  suspicions,  as  such  commissions  generally 
do,  and  the  goods  were  acquitted.  The  importers  were  a  German  house, 
by  the  name  of  F.  Schwan  &  Co.,  who  took  the  owner's  oath,  but  the  ques- 
tion of  ownership  was  doubtful. 

(L.  ) 

The  importer  in  this  case  was  a  German  by  the  name  of  Kessler.  The 
dealers  in  leather  complained  that  frauds  were  practised  in  the  article.  The 
invoice  in  question  was  put  up  by  merchant  appraisers  about  50  per  cent. ; 
a  witness  however  was  found,  (a  French  gentleman,)  who  testified  to  the 


Rep.  No.  669,  205 

purchase.  We  did  not  believe  his  testimony,  but  the  jury  did,  and  acquit- 
ted the  goods. 

(  M.  ) 

This  was  a  piano  forte  case,  similar  to  the  one  before  referred  to  in  ap- 
pendix G, but  it  was  condemned,  it  notbringingany  thingover  expenses.  The 
costs  were  paid  by  the  clerk  of  the  court,  and  the  amount  is  not  known  at 
this  office.  There  was  nothing  left  for  the  United  States  or  the  collector. 
These  cases  were  instituted  to  please  the  clamor  of  the  manufacturers  of  the 
article  in  this  country. 

(N.  ) 

These  sails  were  imported  by  the  old  Liverpool  line  of  packets,  for  which 
Goodhue  &  Co.  and  Charles  H.  Marshall  are  agents.  They  were  made  up 
in  England  and  smuggled  on  shore.  It  came  to  the  knowledge  of  a  jour- 
neyman sailmaker  in  this  city,  who  informed  against  them.  They  were 
seized  and  condemned  without  opposition.  The  importer,  I  understand, 
signed  the  remonstrance  against  the  passage  of  the  bill  commonly  called 
Mr.  Adams's  bill. 

(0.  ) 

The  goods  in  this  case  were  consigned  by  a  manufacturer  in  England  to 
Wood,  Johnson,  &  Burrett,  one  of  the  most  respectable  houses  in  this  city. 
They  we  appraised  by  the  public  appraisers  and  by  respectable  merchants, 
and  put  up  about  24  per  cent.  They  were  clearly  undervalued  to  that  ex- 
tent, and  would  have  been  condemned  in  any  other  district  than  this  in  the 
United  States,  but  the  jury  acquitted  them. 

(P- 

This  is  a  piano  case  similar  to  the  one  in  appendix  G,  and  imported  by  a 
German  gentleman  by  the  name  of  Bache.    The  same  remarks  apply  in 
f     the  one  case  as  the  other. 

(Q-  ) 

This  was  [an  importation  by  G.  A.  Schirpf,  who  is  referred  to  in  Appen- 
dix B,  and  it  was  like  the  case  of  Kobbe,  in  Appendix  F. 

(R.  ) 

This  was  the  case  of  T.  Wood,  jr.  The  appraisement  was  about  22  per 
•cent,  above  the  invoice.  A  commission  was  taken  out  to  England,  and  the 
father,  brother,  and  a  few  friends  of  the  importer,  were  examined,  and  on 
their  testimony  the  goods  were  acquitted.  Subsequent  to  this,  Mr.  Wood 
committed  the  forgery  I  have  alluded  to  in  the  letter  that  accompanies  the 
return. 

(»•) 

This  was  the  case  of  John  Schofield,  and  the  invoice  was  raised  about  25 
per  cent.    He  is  one  of  the  gentlemen  from  Yorkshire,  whose  name  is  very 


204 


Rep.  No.  669. 


much  respected  in  this  department,  as  having  been  heretofore  engaged  in 
importing  woollens  invoiced  much  under  value.  The  goods  were  apprais- 
ed by  merchant  appraisers  as  well  as  the  public  appraisers.  The  jury,  by 
their  verdict  of  acquittal,  awarded  a  certificate  of  good  character  to  him,, 
and  the  court  a  like  certificate  of  probable  cause  to  the  collector,  as  it  has 
in  every  case  of  seizure  when  the  jury  have  acquitted. 


C. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  July  6.  1839. 

Sir  :  I  am  strongly  of  opinion,  from  what  I  have  recently  heard,  that  we 
shali  have  a  large  amount  of  goods  in  from  Europe  for  the  fall  business. 

I  am  quite  sure  that  those  goods  have  not  been  ordered  to  any  great  ex- 
tent by  our  own  merchants ;  and  hence  the  conclusion  is,  that  they  are  to 
come  out  on  foreign  account,  and  for  the  most  part  on  account  of  the  man- 
ufacturers. The  habit  those  people  have  indulged  in  very  extensively  no 
doubt  is,  to  invoice  their  goods  at  what  it  cost  them  to  manufacture  them, 
which  is  not  the  true  rule  of  value  to  invoice  by. 

I  have  long  been  of  opinion  that  the  standard  of  value  in  the  appraiser's 
office,  for  woollens  especially,  was  too  low ;  and  I  think  they  are  now  sat- 
isfied of  the  fact;  and,  with  the  view  of  keeping  them  up  to  a  proper 
watchfulness  on  this  subject,  I  wrote  them  a  letter  last  evening,  which  I 
gave  them  to  day,  and  a  copy  of  which  I  enclose,  that  you  may  see  how 
far  I  have  used  your  name  in  the  premises. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretray  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  July  11,  1839. 
Sir  :  The  packet  ship  Virginia,  from  Liverpool,  arrived  last  evening  ; 
and,  judging  from  the  manifest  and  cockets,  she  has  a  valuable  cargo. 
There  are  no  less  than  412  packages  of  woollens.  I  have  given  directions 
to  send  every  package  of  these  to  the  appraiser's  store  for  examination  ;. 
and  I  have  requested  the  appraisers  to  put  additional  help  in  the  woollens 
loft,  and  recommended  that  they  place  Mr.  William  Cairns  there,  who  is  an 
inspector,  and  has  been  for  many  years  in  what  we  call  "  the  English  dry 
goods  loft." 

He  is  very  competent ;  but,  like  all  others,  he  objects  to  the  additional 
labor  without  additional  compensation.  I  have  so  often  troubled  you  with 
these  matters,  that  I  am  unwilling  to  do  it  again. 

You  are  not  responsible  for  the  system ;  but,  as  it  is  now,  it  is  lament- 
ably bad. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


205 


E. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  August  29,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  one  of  your  last  letters  you  called  my  attention  to  the  fact  of  an 
increase  of  officers  in  this  department  since  I  have  been  in  it.  As  a  speci- 
men of  the  complaints  I  get  on  the  other  side  of  the  question,  I  send  you  a 
letter  addressed  to  me  yesterday  by  Messrs.  Swan,  Stone,  &  Co.,  one  of  the 
largest  importing  houses.  The  desk  alluded  to  is  the  order  desk ;  and  it  is 
very  true  (what  is  stated  in  the  letter)  that  business  is  very  pressing  at  that 
desk ;  but  as  we  have  made  up  our  mind  not  to  do  business  faster  than  we 
are  sure,  if  done,  is  right,  and  as  we  have  no  room  for  an  additional  desk  in 
the  office,  we  cannot  add  to  the  force  at  that  desk.  We  are  also  exceed- 
ingly pressed  for  room  at  the  appraiser's  store,  for  the  reason  that  the  mer- 
chants do  not  take  away  any  of  their  goods  when  examined  ;  and  we  have 
been  compelled  to  adopt  the  rule  that  one  invoice  must  be  taken  away  be- 
fore another,  by  the  same  importers,  is  examined.  The  reason  for  not 
taking  them  away  as  fast  as  examined  is  said  to  be,  that  it  is  very  difficult 
to  raise  the  money  to  pay  the  duties.  In  this  respect,  I  help  along  all  that 
I  can  on  my  own  responsibility.  I  have  been,  as  it  were,  compelled  to  take 
the  checks  of  several  houses,  payable  a  few  days  ahead,  for  cash  duties.  I 
do  not  do  this  except  for  houses,  per  ad  venture,  beyond  all  question,  abund- 
antly good ;  and  even  such  houses  are  excedingly  pressed  for  money  to 
carry  on  their  business. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


F. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  August  1,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  received  your  circular  of  the  9th  July  last  this  morning.  I  have 
been  endeavoring  since  the  first  of  that  month  to  get  off  the  papers  refer- 
red to  in  the  circular;  but  we  have  been  so  much  occupied,  and  have  been 
deprived  for  a  fortnight  past  of  so  many  of  our  assistants,  who  have  been 
to  Boston  as  witnesses  in  a  revenue  case,  that  I  have  found  it  impossible 
to  get  them  off,  and  also  to  comply  with  other  matters  I  have  been  anxious 
to  attend  to,  and  especially  to  reply  to  your  late  letters  on  the  subject  of 
the  protest  fund.  In  the  early  part  of  July,  we  had  several  arrivals  with 
full  cargoes  of  goods,  and  it  became  necessary  to  make  some  reforms  in  the 
appraiser's  office,  as  a  matter  of  the  first  importance,  to  the  end  that  the 
Government  might  have  the  benefits  of  such  reforms;  and  I  have  therefore 
spent  about  one-half  of  my  time  for  the  last  month  at  the  appraisers'  stores  \ 
and  I  console  myself  with  the  belief  that  I  have  saved  the  Government  in 
that  time,  by  reason  of  these  reforms,  a  much  larger  sum  than  I  hold  under 
protest,  or  have  ever  held. 

When  my  people  return  from  Boston,  I  shall  make  it  the  business  of  my 
first  leisure  "  to  go  into  a  committee  of  the  whole"  on  unfinished  business, 
and  I  hope  to  get  off  the  papers  you  refer  to  by  the  end  of  the  week. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  W'oodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 


1206 


Rep.  No.  669. 


G. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  July  13,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  case  of  my  sudden  demise,  (which  Heaven  forbid,)  I  wish  you 
to  call  as  a  witness,  in  the  case  of  the  cloths  (seized)  belonging  to  Solomon, 
and  about  which  a  commission  has  gone  or  is  going  to  England,  Hugh  J. 
Kendall,  of  Boston,  who  made  a  passage  in  the  Great  Western,  with  Solo- 
mon, shortly  after  the  seizure,  and  with  whom  Mr.  Kendall  conversed.  If 
you  write  to  Messrs.  W.  S.  Lawrence  Stone,  of  Boston,  they  will 
procure  the  attendance  of  Mr.  Kendall  for  us. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


H. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  January  IS,  1840. 

Sir  :  In  the  case  of  Messrs.  Haights  vs.  J.  Hoyt,  I  do  not  find  that  you 
have  ever  had  any  communication  with  me  on  the  subject.  The  suit  is  for 
■the  recovery  of  duties  paid  on  an  article  called  sealiots,  composed  of 
worsted  and  linen. 

I  think  the  plaintiff  cannot  claim  the  article  to  be  free  for  the  reason  they 
are  worsted  stuffs,  but  probably  on  the  ground  that  the  materials  of  which 
the  article  is  composed  are  both  free. 

In  logic,  two  negatives  make  an  affirmative  ;  and,  by  a  parity  of  reason- 
ing, a  combination  of  two  free  articles  might  make  a  dutiable  one. 

But,  if  I  am  right  in  the  ground  they  take,  I  have  to  answer — 

1.  That  worsted  is  not  a  free  article  to  the  full  extent  claimed. 

2.  It  is  the  same  thing  of  linen.  It  is  only  bleached  or  unbleached  lin- 
ens that  are  free.    (See  4th  section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1833.) 

3.  Ail  other  linens  are  dutiable,  as  a  manufacture  of  flax.  (See  21st  sub- 
division of  2d  section  of  the  act  of  14th  July,  1S32.) 

4.  We  have  uniformly  charged  duiies  on  colored  linens,  because  they 
are  not  deemed  bleached  or  unbleached ;  and  no  one  has  ever  objected  to 
this  construction.  i 

I  send  you  the  following  papers,  viz  : 

1.  The  entry  per  North  America,  sworn  to  25th  of  March. 

2.  The  like  per  ship  Oxford,  and  the  invoice  for  the  same. 

3.  The  entry  and  invoice  per  ship  South  America. 

The  invoice  per  North  America  cannot  be  found  on  file  ;  but  I  have  no 
doubt  the  article  is  the  same  as  in  the  other  two  importations,  which,  you 
will  perceive,  were,  returned  by  the  appraisers  as  "  colored  linen  and  wor- 
sted sealiots,  or  plush. " 

The  following  considerations  may  enter  into  the  case  : 
1.  If  the  article  be  of  colored  linen  back,  the  question  is,  whether  we 
cannot  charge  25  per  cent,  duty,  as  colored  linen  ;  but  the  provision  in  this 
respect  is  different  from  the  act  in  relation  to  cotton,  which  makes  the  arti- 
cle liable  to  the  cottons  duty  when  cotton  is  a  component  :  but  the  act  in 
relation  to  flax  is,  "  all  manufactures  of  hemp  or  flax but  I  would  take 
ithe  ground  that  it  pay  the  colored  linens  duty. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


207 


2.  The  view  of  the  comptroller  is,  that,  the  article  being  a  worsted  arti- 
cle, it  ought  to  pay  as  a  manufacture  composed  in  part  of  wool,  worsted 
being  combed  wool ;  but  I  do  not  believe  the  court  will  permit  this. 

3.  It  is,  for  the  same  reason  that  was  urged  yesterday  in  the  case  of  Un- 
derwood, liable  to  15  per  cent,  duty,  viz  :  because  it  is  not  enumerated. 

These  are  different  views  of  the  case  that  occur  to  me.  There  will  be 
no  dispute  about  the  facts,  (that  is,  of  what  the  article  is  composed,  viz  : 
worsted  and  colored  linen,)  and  it  then  becomes  a  question  of  law. 

The  old-fashioned  name  of  the  article  was  uncut  plush,  and  the  new 
name  is  sealiots.  When  they  were  called  uncut  plush,  they  were  com- 
posed wholly  of  worsted,  and  the  linen  backs  were  substituted  for  economy 
in  duty  as  well  as  manufacture,  and  received  the  name  of  sealiots. 

I  send  Mr.  Cairns  and  Mr.  James,  who  examined  the  goods,  and  can  tell 
you  what  the  article  is,  and  will  confirm  what  I  say.  I  send  also  a  letter 
from  the  comptroller,  under  date  of  May  16,  1839,  which  you  will  please 
return  me. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


I. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  January  20,  1840. 
Sir  :  1  do  not  find  that  you  have  heretofore  called  on  me  for  the  partic- 
ulars in  the  case  of  James  Hall.  I  have  not  now  time  to  make  an  exam- 
ination of  the  papers,  but  have  to  say  that  I  send  them  to  you,  and  that 
the  witnesses  are  the  same  as  in  the  case  of  Hadden  &  Co.  Mr.  Cairns 
will  explain  the  case  as  we  understand  it.  You  had,  perhaps,  better  send 
a  list  of  the  remaining  cases  on  the  calendar  for  this  term,  that  I  may  ex- 
amine and  see  whether  I  have  reported  to  you  in  all  of  them. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 

P.  S.  The  list  of  entries  and  invoices  corresponds  with  bill  of  particu- 
lars.   I  return  you  the  papers  sent  to  me. 

J.  H. 


J. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  February  11,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  reported  to  your  predecessor  in  office,  on  the  27th  of  April,  1839,. 
the  seizure  of  one  case  of  watches,  marked  B  E  665,  imported  by  Wolf  & 
Henriques. 

The  case  was  tried  at  the  present  term  of  the  district  court,  and  the  goods 
were  acquitted,  as  all  other  cases  will  be,  under  the  present  state  of  things 
in  this  district. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Matthew  Birchard,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


208 


Eep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  13,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  reported  to  your  office,  on  the  2d  July  last,  the  seizure  of  M  28 
to  31,  four  cases  piano  fortes,  imported  by  Edward  Bache. 

The  cause  was  tried  at  the  present  term  of  the  district  court,  and  a  verdict 
rendered  for  the  claimants. 

I  am  now  satisfied  that  this  dealing  in  music,  though  it  may  be  very  agree- 
able, is  nevertheless  unprofitable  ;  and  I  shall,  therefore,  hereafter  pay  no 
attention  to  the  complaints  of  our  artisans,  that  their  honest  business  is  in- 
terfered with  by  the  importation  of  this  kind  of  property  at  one-fourth  its 
value.  Any  quantity  of  German  witnesses  can  be  produced,  to  swear  that 
they  are  correctly  invoiced. 

Respectfully. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Matthew  Birchard,  Esq.. 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury*, 

February  14,  1840. 

Sir:  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  11th  instant,  advising  me  that, 
in  the  case  of  the  United  States  against  one  case  of  watches,  marked  B  F 
665,  "  the  suit  was  tried  at  the  present  term  of  the  district  court,  and  the 
goods  were  acquitted,  as  all  other  cases  will  be,  under  the  present  state  of 
things  in  this  district.'7 

Not  understanding  the  peculiar  state  of  things  to  which  you  refer,  I  shall 
be  obliged  for  a  full  report  of  the  particular  difficulties  which  you  have  had 
to  encounter,  and  expect  may  in  future  embarrass  you,  so  that  the  Govern- 
ment may  determine  upon  the  proper  recourses  to  be  taken,  provided  it 
shall  be  in  the  power  of  this  office  to  effect  a  removal  of  the  same ;  and  if 
not,  to  seek  such  aid  from  Congress  as  the  public  interest  may  require. 

I  will  thank  you  for  a  full  and  frank  expression  of  your  views,  and  shall, 
at  all  times,  be  happy  to  receive  any  remark  upon  the  means  of  improve- 
ment which  your  experience  may  suggest  to  you  as  worthy  of  consideration. 

I  am  extremely  anxious  to  adopt  a  course  by  which  a  recovery  in  suits 
by  the  United  States  shall  be  more  certain.  It  is  bad  policy  to  institute 
prosecutions  of  any  kind,  without  a  tolerably  fair  prospect  of  success.  It 
makes  recoveries  by  Government  more  difficult  than  they  would  be,  if  it 
were  generally  understood  that  no  suits  were  commenced  without  a  full 
determination  to  succeed  in  them. 

Very  respectfullv,  &c. 

M.  BIRCHARD, 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hovt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  22,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  send  you  the  reports  to-day  of  the  disposition  of  several  seizure 
cases,  which  gives  me  the  opportunity  of  replying  to  your  letter  of  the  14th 
instant,  which  has  remained  unanswered,  from  a  slight  indisposition,  which 


Kep.  No.  669. 


209 


prevented  me  from  doing  any  thing  that  did  not  require  immediate  atten- 
tion. Yon  ask  me,  in  tha  letter  referred  to,  "for  a  full  report  of  the  partic- 
ular difficulties  which  I  have  had  to  encounter,"  in  the  kind  of  cases  refer- 
red to,  "so  that  the  Government  may  determine  upon  the  proper  recourses 
to  be  taken,  provided  it  shall  be  in  the  power  of  the  Solicitor's  office  to 
effect  a  removal  of  the  same  ;  and  if  not,  to  seek  such  aid  from  Congress  as 
the  public  interest  may  require." 

The  files  of  the  Department  are  already  loaded  with  communications 
from  me  on  these  subjects,  but  I  have  never  yet  found  any  one,  to  whom 
,!  the  letters  were  addressed,  that  evinced  any  willingness  to  take  any  respon- 
sibility tending  to  correct  the  evils  that  I  have  heretofore  complained  of. 

The  difficulties  we  have  to  encounter  arise  from  various  causes. 

1.  The  laxity  with  which  the  revenue  laws  have  heretofore  been  execu- 
ted in  this  district  encouraged  a  most  lamentable  disregard  of  all  moral  feel- 
ing, and  actually  produced  a  general  repugnance  to  all  ideas  of  considering 
the  laws  as  having  any  binding  force ;  and  the  arrogance  of  the  commer- 
cial classes,  exhibited  within  the  last  few  years,  in  their  efforts  to  satisfy 
the  people  that  this  class  alone  were  entitled  to  control  the  Government,  as 
well  as  the  destinies  of  all  other  classes,  has  had  its  influence  even  in  "the 
judgment  seat,"  and,  from  a  sympathetic  feeling,  operating  unseen  and  un- 
felt,  as  we  must  suppose,  has  controlled  judges  in  advices  and  admonitions 
to  jurors,  which  has  been  adverse  to  the  interest  of  the  United  States. 

2.  We  hav.)  been  heretofore  unfortunate  in  the  selection  of  jurors  in  the 
e    courts  of  the  United  States.    They  are  not  drawn,  as  is  the  practice  in  other 

courts,  but  are  selected  by  the  marshal  from  what  sources  he  pleases  ;  and 
hitherto  large  numbers  of  jurors  have  been  taken  from  the  mercantile  classes. 

1    against  which  course  I  have  remonstrated,  so  far  forth  as  delicacy  would 

i     permit  me  to  do,  in  a  matter  involving  the  manner  in  which  a  public  offi- 

•  i  cer,  of  great  responsibility,  discharged  his  public  duty. 

1  made  an  effort,  on  one  occasion,  to  procure  an  indictment  against  an 

f  importer  for  perjury  and  forgery,  when  it  was  "reported  to  have  been  said 
by  one  of  the  grand  jurors  (who  was  himself  a  merchant)  that  it  was  very 
hard  to  indict  the  individual  referred  to,  when  he  did  nothing  more  than  all 
the  merchants  did.  This  statement  was  published  in  the  newspapers,  and 
was  not  contradicted  ;  and  hence  there  is  some  reason  to  believe  that  the 
remark  t^ight  have  been  made.  The  person  was  not  indicted,  and,  since 
then,  I  have  preferred  that  cases  in  which  the  United  States  were  parties 
should  be  passed  upon  by  jurors  other  than  merchants ;  but  it  is  very  rare 
that  this  has  been  done. 

It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  officers  of  Government  would  natu- 
rally incline  in  feeling  with  the  United  Stales,  but  in  all  seizure  cases  they 
derive  about  the  same  benefit  from  a  seizure,  whether  the  goods  are  con- 
demned or  acquitted ;  and  it  arises  from  a  construction  of  the  acts  of  Con- 
gress which  I  have  also  resisted,  but  without  success. 

The  bSth  section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  1  supposed  was  very  clear 
as  to  the  custody  of  the  goods  under  seizure.  And  Judge  Story,  in  his  court, 
decided,  in  the  case  of  Burke  vs.  Treviatt,  in  substance,  that  the  [custody] 
remained  with  the  collector.  I  took  this  ground,  but  the  district  court  de- 
cided against  me,  and  I  appealed  to  the  Supreme  Court,  where  the  case 
was  ably  argued  by  your  predecessor  in  office,  when  Mr.  Justice  Story  re- 
fused to  stand  by  his  former  opinion.  The  case  is  reported  in  13  Peters's 
Reports. 


210 


Rep.  No.  669. 


The  marshal,  then,  under  the  act  of  1794  and  the  rules  of  court,  charges 
his  commissions  as  a  custody  fee,  under  the  monition  of  the  court ;  and  if 
the  goods  are  sold,  he  gets  his  commissions  on  the  sales  ;  and  if  acquitted, 
he  gets  only  his  commissions  as  custody  fee. 

But  there  are  reasons  why  the  custody  should  be  left  with  the  collector, 
as  he  is,  in  law  and  public  opinion,  responsible  for  all  consequences,  as  the 
following  extract  from  a  published  report  of  a  trial  of  a  case  (the  disposi- 
tion of  which  I  report  to-day)  will,  to  some  extent,  show  : 

"  Mr.  Cutting,  for  the  claimant,  remarked  that  the  verdict  of  the  jury  did 
not  involve  very  momentous  consequences ;  as  it  turned  out  that,  while  the 
parties  were  amusing  themselves  with  litigations  as  to  who  should  have  the 
skins,  the  subject  had  become  worth  nobody's  having;  the  district  attorney 
and  himself  could  each  take  a  shell,  but  where  was  the  oyster  ?" 

I  send  also  an  article  from  the  Commercial  Advertiser,  copying  one  from 
the  Journal  of  Commerce,  which  indicates  that  I  am  responsible  for  these 
matters.  I  do  not  shrink  from  any  responsibility  the  law  throws  upon  me, 
but  I  ought  not,  in  justice,  to  bear  that  which  belongs  to  others. 

I  have  repeatedly  remonstrated  to  the  marshal  as  to  the  place  in  which 
he  puts  the  goods  under  seizure,  and  have  stated  the  nature  of  those  re- 
monstrances to  the  Department,  but  the  evil  has  not  been  corrected.  And 
I  am  quite  sure,  if  a  proper  communication  was  addressed  to  the  present 
marshal,  he  would  adopt  any  suggestions  that  should  be  made. 

In  every  bill  that  I  pay  to  the  marshal,  connected  with  these  matters, 
there  is  a  charge  for  storage.  This  is  quite  unnecessary  ;  for  the  goods  could 
remain  in  public  store  free  of  charge,  and  could  be  better  taken  care  of  there 
by  the  officers  of  the  Government  than  by  a  storekeeper  or  the  marshal. 

I  had  occasion  to  complain,  a  few  days  since,  to  the  marshal,  for  another 
charge,  which  will  appear  in  the  letter,  a  copy  of  which  1  send  you,  under 
date  of  the  14th  Instant. 

Some  of  the  evils  complained  of  are  beyond  the  immediate  action  of  the 
Department  or  of  Congress.  For  instance,  men  cannot  be  made  honest  by 
legislation  ;  but  we  must  rely  upon  time,  and  the  example  of  a  faithful  and 
impartial  execution  of  the  laws,  for  a  more  wholesome  moral  feeling  in  re- 
gard to  the  integrity  of  transactions  at  the  custom-house,  which  will  eventu- 
ally tend  to  fix  upon  the  minds  of  the  community  a  necessity  for  punishing- 
all  such  as  are  engaged  in  the  infraction  of  the  laws.  But  there  should  be 
legislation,  or  at  least  instructions,  in  relation  to  the  other  topics  referred  to. 

Very  respectfullv,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

M.  Birchard,  Esq.,  Solicitor,  fyc. 


Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 

February  27,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  avail  myself  of  a  leisure  moment  to  call  your  attention  to  a  sub- 
ject connected  with  your  duty,  the  importance  of  which,  no  doubt,  will 
suggest  itself  to  you  in  the  experience  you  will  have  previous  to  the  ex- 
piration of  your  term  of  office.  I  allude  to  the  selection  of  jurors.  To 
preserve  this  mode  of  trial  in  its  purity,  the  men  composing  a  jury  should 
not  only  be  perfectly  unbiased,  but  above  suspicion.  They  should  not- 
only  be  free  from  any  direct  interest  in  the  event  of  a  suit,  but  they  should 


Rep.  No.  669. 


211 


be  free  from  any  indirect  interest  in  the  determination  of  the  questions  liti- 
gated. Whether  they  shall  be  such,  depends,  to  a  great  extent,  upon  your- 
self. In  making  up  a  jury,  you  have  the  whole  range  of  your  district,  em- 
bracing a  dense  population  of  intelligent,  well-informed  men,  of  a  high 
order  of  integrity.  Whether  selected  from  within  the  city  or  without,  is  a 
matter  of  little  moment,  so  far  as  expense  is  concerned,  when  compared 
with  the  importance  of  having  an  impartial  body,  unexceptionable  either 
to  plaintiff  or  defendant.  You  will  have  perceived  that  verdicts  have  been 
repeatedly  rendered  against  the  United  States,  in  prosecutions  for  breaches 
of  the  revenue  laws,  on  proof  of  facts  that,  in  most  other  places  than  New 
York,  would  have  ensured  a  verdict  in  its  favor.  These  things  are  injuri- 
ous to  a  well-regulated  trade.  They  encourage  irregular  traffic,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  fair  business  men,  and  tend  to  give  rogues  an  undue  advantage 
over  the  honorable  importer.  I  am  aware  that  it  is  not  wholly  in  your 
power  to  correct  the  existing  evils,  which  have  grown  out  of  great  former 
laxity  in  revenue  officers  at  New  York,  but  I  trust  you  will  cordially  co- 
operate with  the  present  officers  in  endeavoring  to  produce  a  healthy  moral 
sentiment,  upon  the  subject  of  enforcing  the  revenue  laws. 

There  are  few  persons  who  have  not  often  seen  honest  men  err  in  judg- 
ment, in  consequence  of  influences  from  which  they,  at  the  time,  believed 
themselves  entirely  free.  It  imputes  nothing  against  the  honor  of  New 
York  merchants  to  suppose  that,  in  this  respect,  they  are  subject  to  the  like 
imperfections  which  belong  to  other  men.  /  have,  there/ore,  to  request 
you  to  bear  these  general  observations  in  mind,  when  selecting  jurors  for 
the  trial  of  revenue  cases, and  endeavor  to  select  impartial,  capable  men, 
who  are  totally  disconnected  with  trade  and  all  its  influences, such  as  you 
would  willingly  trust  to  arbitrate  a  case  of  your  own,  of  equal  magnitude 
and  importance.  Should  you  succeed,  general  confidence  will  attend  these 
verdicts,  and  complaint  that  the  revenue  law  at  New  York  is  a  different 
thing  from  what  it  is  in  other  places  will  be  less  frequent.  Possibly,  men 
who  for  a  long  time  have  found  their  profits  in  frauds  upon  the  custom- 
house may  prove  clamorous,  but  it  will  be  noise  without  either  just  cause 
or  honest  sympathy,  because  the  whole  nation  knows  that  confidence  may 
well  be  placed,  in  the  integrity  and  judgment  of  honest  farmers  and  me- 
chanics, and  that  it  is  not  less  proper  for  the  United  States  to  seek  a  fair 
trial  than  for  a  private  citizen.    This  is  all  that  I  desire  to  accomplish. 

I  perceive  there  are,  at  times,  charges  for  the  storage  of  goods  seized  while 
in  the  legal  custody  of  the  marshal.  May  not  this  class  of  charges,  in  many 
cases,  be  reduced  or  avoided,  by  allowing  the  goods  to  remain  in  the  public 
storehouse,  pendente  lite,  where  they  will  be  free  of  charge  for  storage? 
If  yea,  it  will  be  better  to  leave  them  in  the  public  store,  unless  there  should 
be  some  sufficient  cause  for  a  change.  By  the  13th  Peters,  you  will  see 
that  the  present  Attorney  General  held  that  the  law  required  the  collector 
so  to  keep  them,  yet  the  court  overruled  him  as  to  the  collector's  right  to 
demand  the  custody. 

Very  respectfully^ 

M.  BIRCHARD,  Solicitor,  4*^ 

Anthony  J.  Bleecker,  Esq., 

United  Slates  Marshal,  New  York. 


2 


Rep.  No.  669. 


United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  September  18,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  the  case  of  the  two  cases  marked  H  W  621,  622,  reported  to 
this  office  by  your  letter  of  August  6,  as  seized  because  "  not  in  the  mani- 
fest" and  the  ship  in  which  they  were  imported,  and  which,  with  other 
articles  reported  in  the  same  letter,  were  included  in  an  information  filed 
pursuant  to  your  instructions,  I  have  found  it  necessary  to  discontinue  the 
proceedings,  inasmuch  as  the  act  of  Congress  under  which  the  seizure  was 
made  and  the  information  filed,  does  not  forfeit  the  goods  omitted  in  the 
manifest,  except  where  they  belong  or  are  consigned  to  the  master,  mate, 
officers,  or  crew  of  the  vessel,  (see  act  of  1799,  sec.  24,)  which  was  not  the 
case  with  these  goods.  The  omission  in  the  present  case  merely  subjected 
the  master  to  a  pecuniary  penalty  ;  and,  had  I  proceeded  in  the  cause,  there 
must  have  been  an  acquittal  of  two  cases  referred  to.  Perhaps  some  ques- 
tion might  have  been  made  as  to  the  propriety  of  a  certificate  of  probable 
cause.  But  whilst  it  was  therefore  expedient  to  discontinue  the  case,  it  ap- 
peared true  that,  as  a  penalty  had  actually  been  incurred,  it  was  just  that 
claimant  should  defray  the  costs  which  had  accrued,  to  which  his  counsel 
Teadily  assented ;  and,  accordingly,  the  information  has  been  discontinued 
as  to  these  two  cases,  on  payment  of  duties  and  costs. 

In  the  mean  time,  however,  an  application  had  been  made  for  the  re- 
mission of  the  forfeiture  ought  to  be  enforced  by  the  information,  and  an 
examination  had  before  the  district  judge,  before  it  was  discovered  that  no 
cause  of  forfeiture  existed;  and  from  the  circumstances  which  were  then 
disclosed,  as  well  as  from  the  knowledge  I  have  obtained  of  the  whole  case, 
I  think  it  quite  probable  that  the  omission  to  enter  the  goods  in  question 
on  the  manifest  was  the  result  of  ignorance  and  misinformation,  and  not 
an  intentional  violation  of  our  laws. 

Respectfully, 

B.  F.  BUTLER, 
United  States  Attorney. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


K. 

Letter  from  the  Commissioners  to  T.  Ewing,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

New  York,  June  5,  1841. 
Dear  Sir  :  It  appears,  from  testimony  already  received  by  our  commis- 
sion, that  compromises  between  the  owners,  consignees,  and  agents  of  im- 
porters, on  the  one  hand,  and  the  collector  on  the  other,  by  means  of  which 
goods  seized  or  detained  have  been  released,  prosecutions  for  violations  of 
the  revenue  laws  have  been  discontinued,  and  threatened  prosecutions  or 
seizures  of  goods  have  been  avoided,  have  taken  place  under  the  adminis- 
tration of  Mr.  Hoyt,  the  late  collector,  in  numerous  instances  ;  and  that  large 
sums  of  money  have  been  paid  to  him,  and  heavy  fees  to  the  district  at- 
torney, as  a  condition  of  these  compromises.  It  is  pretended  that  these 
compromises  have  been  made  by  the  sanction  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  or  by  the  advice  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  and  the  re- 
ceipts given  for  these  sums  of  money  profess  to  be  predicated  on  such  ad- 
vice. -  £ 


Rep.  No.  669. 


213 


If  consonant  with  your  views  of  propriety,  we  should  be  glad  to  learn 
how  far  this  practice  has  received  the  sanction  of  your  predecessor,  or  at 
Jeast  how  far  these  compromises  have  been  made  under  the  advice  of  the 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury.  The  correspondence  in  the  office  of  the  Solici- 
tor will,  we  presume,  furnish  the  desired  information,  and,  should  you  think 
proper  to  communicate  it,  it  may  materially  assist  us  in  our  investigations. 
With  great  respect,  your  humble  servants, 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 
ALFRED  KELLEY. 

Hon.  Thomas  Ewing, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Letter  from  T.  Ewing,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  the  Commissioners. 

Washington,  June  12,  1341. 
Gentlemen  :  I  send  you  by  this  mail  the  information  desired,  and  will 
endeavor  to  give  you  Mr.  Underwood  by  Tuesday  evening. 

In  haste,  yours, 

T.  EWING. 

Hon.  George  Potndexter, 
Alfred  Kelly,  and 
William  M.  Steuart,  Esqs. 


Letter  from  C.  B.  Penrose,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  to  T.  Ewing,  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury. 

Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 

June  12,  1841. 

Sir:  The  letter  from  the  Hon.  G.  Poindexter  and  Alfred  Kelley,  com- 
missioners, &c,  of  the  5th  instant,  referred  by  you  to  this  office,  has  been  re- 
ceived. They  state  that  "  it  appears,  from  testimony  already  received  by 
our  commission,  that  compromises  between  the  owners,  consignees,  and 
agents  of  importers  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  collector  on  the  other,  by 
means  of  which  goods  seized  and  detained  have  been  released,  prosecu- 
tions for  violations  of  the  revenue  laws  have  been  discontinued,  and 
threatened  prosecutions  or  seizures  of  goods  have  been  avoided,  have 
taken  place  under  the  late  collector,  Mr.  Hoyt,  in  numerous  instances,  and 
that  large  sums  of  money  have  been  paid  to  him.,  and  heavy  fees  to  the 
district  attorney,  as  a  condition  of  these  compromises.  It  is  pretended  that 
these  compromises  have  been  made  by  the  sanction  of  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  or  by  the  advice  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  and  the  re- 
ceipts given  for  these  sums  of  money  profess  to  be  predicated  on  such  ad- 
vice and  they  request,  if  consistent  with  your  views  of  propriety,  a  de- 
sire to  learn  how  far  this  practice  has  received  the  sanction  of  your  prede- 
cessor, or  at  least  how  far  these  compromises  have  been  made  under  the 
advice  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury ;  and  they  express  a  desire  to  see 
he  correspondence  in  the  office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  on  this  sub- 


214 


Rep.  No.  669. 


ject,  which,  they  suppose,  will  furnish  the  desired  information,  and  mate- 
rially aid  them  in  their  investigations. 

In  reply  to  this  reference,  1  have  to  state  that  I  am  aware  of  no  reason 
why  all  the  correspondence  in  this  office,  which  will  shed  light  on  the  ob- 
jects of  inquiry  suggested  in  their  letter,  should  not  be  communicated. 
With  a  desire  to  furnish  all  that  might  be  deemed  useful,  I  have  caused 
the  correspondence  to  be  examined,  and  herewith  enclose  you  copies  of  all 
the  letters  on  file,  which  relate  to  the  subjects  inquired  of. 

No.  1  is  a  letter  from  Jesse  Hoyt,  collector,  to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treas- 
ury, dated  November  19,  1S39,  advising  him  that  he  had  settled,  by  com- 
promise, two  suits  instituted  by  his  direction  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act 
of  2d  March,  1799;  and  that  he  was  negotiating  for  the  settlement  of  several 
others;  and  should  proceed  to  compromise  all  he  could.  The  suits  thus 
compromised  were,  one  against  John  Taylor,  jr.,  to  recover  $50,000 — the 
sum  received  was  $25,000  ;  and  the  other  against  Geo.  Shaw,  to  recover 
$20,000 — the  sum  received  was  $15,000.  The  reasons  assigned  for  these 
compromises  are,  in  substance,  that  "  the  parties  had  fled  from  the  United 
States  before  process  could  be  served  on  them,  and  there  was  no  probability 
df  their  return  ;  that  there  would  be  difficulty  in  obtaining  proof  sufficient 
for  their  conviction,  or  to  establish  the  exact  sum  of  which  the  United 
States  had  been  defrauded ;  and  that  unless  the  sums  offered  by  the  friends 
of  the  parties  were  accepted,  and  the  suits  discontinued,  there  was  no  prob- 
ability of  the  United  States  obtaining  any  portion  of  the  amount  of  which 
it  had  been  defrauded. "  A  similar  letter  was  addressed  by  the  collector  to 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  the  same  day,  which  was  referred  to  this 
ofiice,  without  comment  or  remark  of  any  kind. 

On  the  receipt  of  these  letters,  Mr.  Gilpin,  then  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 
addressed  a  letter  to  B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  district  attorney,  dated  November 
25,  1839,  (a  copy  of  which  is  enclosed,  marked  No.  2,)  in  which,  after  re- 
citing the  substance  of  the  collector's  letter,  he  remarks,  that  "  these  cir- 
cumstances appear  to  me  to  be  satisfactory,  and  to  make  the  discontinuance 
proper.  As,  however,  the  dismissal  of  suits  without  prosecuting  them  to 
judgment  is  a  course  which  only  appears  justifiable  by  the  particular  cir- 
cumstances of  each  case,  I  should  prefer,  in  similar  cases  to  these,  the  grounds, 
together  with  your  views  and  those  of  the  collector,  being  reported  fully  to 
this  office,  in  the  first  instance,  and  before  the  actual  discontinuance." 

Since  that  period,  the  following  letters  have  passed  in  relation  to 
these  and  analogous  cases,  copies  of  which  are  herewith  enclosed: 

From  13.  F.  Butler,  district  attorney,  to  Solicitor,  dated  November  27, 
1839,  No.  3. 

From  J.  Hoyt,  collector,  to  Solicitor — 5  letters,  all  dated  December  16, 
1839,  and  other  cases  compromised,  Nos.  4,  5,  6,  7,  and  S. 

From  B.  F.  Butler,  district  attorney,  to  Solicitor,  December  20,  1839,. 
No.  9. 

From  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  to  J.  Hoyt,  collector,  December  21, 
1839,  No.  10. 

From  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  to  B.  F.  Butler,  December  24,  1S39, 
No.  11. 

From  Jesse  Hoyt  to  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  January  7,  1840,  No.  12. 
From  Solicitor  to  J.  Hoyt,  collector,  January  23,  1S40,  No.  13. 
From  these  letters  it  appears  that  the  several  compromises  were  made 
by  the  collector  and  district  attorney,  without  consulting  the  Solicitor  of  the 


Rep.  No.  669. 


215 


Treasury,  and  that  he  disapproved  of  that  mode  of  proceeding,  and  re» 
quired  that  in  all  cases  full  and  detailed  reports  should  be  made  to  the  De- 
partment, and  its  approbation  obtained,  before  any  suit  should  be  settled 
by  compromise.  It  will  be  perceived,  however,  that  in  the  letter  from  the 
Solicitor  to  Mr.  Hoyt,  of  January  23,  1S40,  he  states  "  that  the  reasons  as- 
signed for  the  settlement  of  the  several  suits  named  are  such  as  would 
have  induced  this  office  to  advise  the  course  taken  respecting  them,  had  it 
been  consulted.''  After  this  correspondence,  it  does  not  appear  that  any 
suit  was  thus  compromised  without  first  consulting  this  office. 
The  following  are  the  cases  settled  as  above  referred  to  : 

Party  sued.  Amount  sued  for.  Amount  received  by  compromise. 

John  Taylor  jr.         -  -    $50,000  -  -  $25,000 

George  Shaw  -  -      20,000  -  -  15,000 

Samuel  Bradbury      -  -     20,000  -  -  7,500 

Samuel  Shaw  -  -      10,000  -  -  5,000 

Henry  Dixon  -  -      10,000  -  -  6,000 

James  Bottomly        -  -      25,000  -  -  20,000 

% 

The  case  of  Piatt  &  Duncan,  sued  for  $20,000,  was  compromised  after- 
wards by  the  payment  of  $7,500.  In  this  case  the  consent  of  the  Solicitor 
was  asked  and  given  before  the  compromise. 

There  is  nothing  on  file  in  this  office  showing  that  "  large  sums  of  money 
have  been  paid  to  the  collector,  and  heavy  fees  to  the  district  attorney,  as  a 
condition  of  these  compromises." 

I  am,  with  great  respect,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  B.  PENROSE, 

Solicitor  of  Treasury. 

Hon.  Thomas  Ewing, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

P.  S.  The  letter  of  the  commissioners  is  herewith  returned. 


(  No.  1.  ) 

Letter  from  Jesse  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor  of  the  Treas- 
ury. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  November  19,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  reported  to  you,  on  the  6th  of  August  last,  that  I  had  directed  suits 
to  be  commenced  against  John  Taylor,  jr.,  and  Ceorge  Shaw,  under  the  66th 
section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799.  The  suit  against  John  Taylor,  jr.,  has 
been  discontinued,  with  the  concurrence  of  the  district  attorney,  upon  his 
paying  the  sum  of  $25,000.  The  suit  against  George  Shaw  has  been  dis- 
continued on  his  paying  the  sum  of  $15,000.  Both  of  which  proceeds  have 
been  distributed,  and  the  proportion  belonging  to  the  United  States  (viz: 
$20,000)  was  placed  to  its  credit  on  the  books  of  this  office  this  day. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


216 


Rep.  No.  669. 


(  No.  2.  ) 

Letter  jrom  H.  D.  Gilpi7i,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  to  B.  F.  Butler, 

District  Attorney. 

Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 

November  25,  1839. 

Sir  :  On  the  6th  August  last,  the  collector  of  customs  at  New  York  re- 
ported to  this  office  that  he  had,  on  the  31st  July,  directed  you  to  bring  suit 
against  John  Taylor,  jr.,  for  the  recovery  of  $50,000,  under  the  66th  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  and  also  a  suit  against  George  Shaw,  to 
recover  $20,000  under  the  same  section. 

On  the  3d  of  August  you  reported  that  you  had  instituted  action  of  debt 
against  each  of  these  persons,  for  the  above  sums,  as  duties  due  from  them. 
In  your  returns  of  "  suits  pending"  and  "  suits  decided,"  at  September  term, 
no  report  is  made  of  your  proceedings  in  these  cases,  nor  in  any  subsequent 
returns  received  from  you.  The  collector,  however,  in  a  letter  of  the  19th 
instant,  informs  me  that  you  had,  at  his  instance,  discontinued  the  suits,  on 
the  payment  of  $25,000  by  Taylor  and  $15,000  by  Shaw.  The  leasons 
assigned  by  the  collector  are  i  "  That  the  parties  had  left  the  United  States 
before  process  was  served  on  them  ;  that  there  was  no  probability  of  their 
return;  that  there  would  be  difficulty  in  obtaining  proof  sufficient  for 
their  conviction,  or  establishing  the  exact  sum  of  which  the  United  States 
had  been  defrauded,  on  trial ;  and  that,  unless  these  sums  were  accepted, 
and  the  suits  discontinued,  there  ivas  no  probability  of  the  United  States 
obtaining  any  portion  of  the  amount  of  which  it  had  been  defrauded." 
These  circumstances  appear  to  me  to  be  satisfactory,  and  to  make  this  dis- 
continuance proper.  As,  however,  the  dismissal  of  suits  without  prosecut- 
ing them  to  judgment  is  a  course  which  only  appears  justifiable  by  the  par- 
ticular circumstances  of  each  case,  I  should  prefer,  in  similar  cases  to  these, 
the  grounds,  together  with  your  views  and  those  of  the  collector,  being 
fully  reported  to  this  office,  in  the  first  instance,  and  before  the  actual  dis- 
continuance. 

In  the  present  cases,  also,  there  appears  to  be  a  discrepancy  in  the  report 
of  the  collector,  who  states  the  proceedings  to  be  to  recover  a  forfeiture, 
while  your  report  appears  to  regard  it  as  an  action  of  debt  to  recover  un- 
paid duties.    I  shall  be  much  obliged  by  your  explaining  this. 

I  will  take  the  occasion  to  say  that  it  was  the  intention  of  my  instructions 
that  the  situation  of  all  cases  should  be  included  in  the  regular  term  reports  ; 
so  that,  after  a  report  was  received  from  you  of  the  institution  of  any  suit, 
those  returns  might  show,  at  the  end  of  each  term,  its  exact  situation  up  to 
a  final  judgment  and  execution,  if  that  judgment  is  in  favor  of  the  United 
States.  As  these  are  cases  which  have  been  reported  by  you  as  commenced, 
but  not  noticed  in  your  succeeding  term  reports,  I  have  thought  it  well  to 
call  your  attention  to  the  matter. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

HENRY  D.  GILPIN, 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 

Benj.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


Rep.  No.  669.  21? 

(  No.  3.  ) 

Letter  from  B.  F.  Butter,  District  Attorney,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor 

of  the  Treasury. 

United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  November  27,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  relation  to  the  cases  mentioned  in  your  letter  of  the  25th,  I  have 
the  honor  to  state,  that  although  the  moneys  received  by  me  on  the  settle- 
ment of  these  cases,  and  in  one  since  settled,  were  immediately  paid  over 
to  the  collector,  yet  that  only  informal  receipts  were  taken,  for  which  the 
triplicate  receipts  were  afterwards  to  be  and  have  just  been  furnished  ;  and 
that  the  formal  report  of  these  settlements  has  been  delayed  by  this  cause, 
and  also  because  a  negotiation  has  for  some  time  been  going  on,  for  the 
settlement  of  other  suits  of  the  same  nature,  brought  at  the  same  time,  and 
on  the  same  general  grounds.  I  shall  report  within  a  few  days  on  all  that 
shall  then  have  been  settled. 

These  suits  are  all  for  the  forfeiture  given  by  the  sixty-sixth  section  of 
the  aci  of  March,  2,  1799,  and  have  not  been  noticed  in  the  reports  of 
suits  pending  undecided  at  September  term,  because  nothing  was  done  in 
court  in  them  at  that  term,  and  because  the  first  of  them  was  not  settled 
until  the  4th  of  November. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

B.  F.  BUTLER,  U.  S.  Attorney. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


(  No.  4.  ) 

Letter  from  Jesse  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor  of  the 

Treasury. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  December  16,  1839. 
Sir  :  On  the  6th  of  August  last  I  reported  to  you  that  I  directed  the 
district  attorney  to  commence  a  suit  against  Samuel  Bradbury,  under  the 
66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  for  a  forfeiture,  and  to  hold  him  to  bail  in 
the  sum  of  $20,000.  For  the  same  reasons  stated  in  the  case  of  John 
Taylor,  jr.,  this  suit  was  settled  for  the  sum  of  $7,500,  and  the  share  of  the 
United  States  was  $3,750,  which  has  this  day  been  passed  to  the  credit  of 
the  United  States  on  the  books  of  this  office. 

Respectfully,  yours, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector, 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


218 


Rep.  No.  669. 


(  No.  5.  ) 

Letter  from  J.  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  December  16,  1S39. 
Sir  :  On  the  28th  August  last  I  reported  to  you  that  I  directed  the  dis- 
trict attorney  to  commence  a  suit  against  Henry  Dixon,  under  the  66th 
section  of  the  act  of  1799,  for  a  forfeiture,  and  to  hold  him  to  bail  in  the 
sum  of  §10,000.  For  the  reasons  stated  in  the  case  of  John  Taylor,  jr., 
this  suit  was  settled  for  the  sum  of  $6,000,  and  the  share  of  the  United 
States  (viz  :  $3,000)  has  this  day  been  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  United 
States  on  the  books  of  this  office. 

Respectfully,  vour  obedient  servant, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


(  No.  6.  )  , 
Letter  from  J.  Hbyt,  Collector,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 
Custom-House,  New  York,  December  16,  1839. 

Sir  :  On  the  28th  November  last  I  reported  to  you  that  I  directed  the 
district  attorney  to  commence  a  suit  against  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  under  the 
66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  for  a  forfeiture,  and  to  hold  him  to  bail  in 
the  sum  of  $25,000.  For  the  same  reasons  stated  in  the  case  of  John 
Taylor,  jr.,  this  suit  was  settled  for  the  sum  of  $20,000,  and  the  share  of 
the  United  States  (viz  :  $10,000)  has  this  day  been  passed  to  the  credit  of 
the  United  States  on  the  books  of  this  office. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


(  No.  7.  ) 

Letter  from  J.  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin  ,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury ; 

Custom-House,  New  York,  December  16,  1839. 
Sir  :  On  the  28th  November  last  I  reported  to  you  that  1  directed  the 
district  attorney  to  commence  a  suit  against  Samuel  Shaw,  under  the  66th 
section  of  the  act  of  1799,  for  a  forfeiture,  and  to  hold  him  to  bail  in  the 
sum  of  $10,000.  For  the  same  reasons  stated  in  the  case  of  John  Taylor, 
jr.,  this  suit  was  settled  for  the  sum  of  $5,000,  and  the  share  of  the  United 
States  (viz  :  $2,500)  has  this  day  been  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  United 
States  on  the  books  of  this  office. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


219 


(  No.  S.  ) 
[private  and  unofficial.] 

Letter  from  J,  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Soliciter  of  the  Treasury, 

Custom-House,  New  York,  December  16,  1839. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  send  you  to-day  the  reports  of  the  settlement  of  four  suits 
brought  for  forfeitures,  (Messrs.  Bradbury,  Bottomly,  Samuel  Shaw,  and 
Henry  Dixon.)  and  I  state  the  money  was  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  United 
States  to-day.  I  write  this  to  say  that  it  will  appear,  by  the  reports  to  the 
district  attorney,  that  I  received  most  of  the  money  on  the  30lh  November. 
The  truth  is,  I  took  checks,  the  last  of  which  was  payable  to-day,  and 
which  I  got  certified  by  the  bank  on  which  it  was  drawn  early  this  morn- 
ing, and  therefore  I  distribute  the  first  moment  I  could. 

//  is  picking  literally  just  so  much  out  of  the  fire,  and  therefore  I  did 
-not  hesitate  to  take  checks,  payable  ahead,  which  1  knew  to  be  good. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


(  No.  9.  ) 

Letter  from  B.  F.  Butler,  District  Attorney,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor 

of  the  Treasury. 

United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  December  20,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  herewith  to  enclose  receipts  of  the  collector  of 
this  port  for  the  following  sums  received  by  me,  upon  the  settlement  of 
certain  suits  heretofore  commenced  by  me,  pursuant  to  his  instructious,  for 
the  purpose  of  recovering  the  value  of  goods  previously  entered  by  the 
defendants  at  the  custom-house  in  this  city,  and  delivered  to  them,  but  al- 
leged by  the  collector  to  be  forfeited,  by  reason  of  their  having  been  fraud- 
ulently invoiced  at  less  than  the  real  cost  thereof,  at  the  place  of  exporta- 
tion— that  is  to  say : 

The  United  States  vs.  John  Taylor,  jr.,  for  $25,000. 

The  United  States  vs.  George  Shaw,  for  $15,000. 

The  United  States  vs.  Samuel  Bradbury,  for  $7,500. 

The  United  States  vs.  Samuel  Shaw,  for  $5,000. 

The  United  States  vs.  Henry  Dixon,  for  $6,000. 

All  these  suits  were  in  debt  for  the  penalty  or  forfeiture  given  in  the 
66th  section  of  the  revenue  collection  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  and  it  was 
only  by  giving  the  suits  this  direction  that  I  was  enabled  to  hold  the  de- 
fendants who  were  arrested  to  bail ;  for,  since  the  act  of  the  28th  of  Feb- 
ruary last,  to  abolish  imprisonment  for  debt  in  certain  cases,  no  bail  could 
have  been  required,  had  actions  of  debt,  or  any  other  action  ex  contractu, 
for  the  recovery  of  the  short  duties,  been  brought. 

These  suits  were  commenced  after  the  trial  of  the  case  of  the  United 
States  vs.  Samuel  R.  Wood,  which  took  place  in  June  last.  The  disclosures 


220 


Rep.  No.  669. 


in  that  suit  led  the  collector  to  examine  the  course  of  dealing  at  the  custom- 
house, prior,  for  the  most  part,  to  the  period  of  his  appointment,  of  the 
several  persons  above  named.  He  collected  their  various  entries  and  in- 
voices, and,  after  full  examination,  made  by  him  and  myself  in  July  and 
August  last,  we  came  to  the  conclusion  that  suits  might  safely  be  brought 
and  ought  to  be  brought  against  the  above-named  defendants. 

In  stating  the  amount  of  the  alleged  forfeiture  in  any  case,  and  for 
which  the  defendant  was  to  be  held  to  bail,  we  were  necessarily  obliged  to 
assrme,  conjecturally,  such  amounts  as  we  supposed  large  enough  to  cover 
all  the  claims  which  might  by  possibility  be  established,  and  to  secure  ad- 
equate bail. 

I  was  aware,  from  the  first,  that  very  great  difficulties  would  exist  in 
making  out,  in  any  one  of  these  cases,  by  competent  and  technical  proofs, 
any  right  to  recover  any  particular  sum;  but  as  I  entertained  a  decided  con* 
viction  that  the  defendants  had  really  been  engaged  in  a  course  of  fraudu- 
lent entries,  and  was  satisfied  that  the  like  conviction  could  be  wrought  by 
the  proofs  in  our  power,  and  by  proofs  which  could  probably  be  obtained,, 
on  the  minds  of  any  intelligent  and  upright  jury,  I  concurred  in  the  expe- 
diency and  duty  of  commencing  the  suits.  In  the  cases  of  Taylor  and  Samuel 
Shaw,  the  defendants  left  the  United  States,  apparently  to  avoid  arrest. 
Some  of  the  other  defendants  also  absented  themselves,  but,  having  nego- 
tiated with  the  collector  and  myself  as  to  the  amount  of  bail  to  be  required 
of  them,  afterwards  returned  to  the  district,  and  were  arrested — that  bail 
fixed  generally  at  amounts  less  than  the  sum  mentioned  in  the  process. 

In  October  I  was  informed  by  the  collector  that  overtures  had  been  made 
by  Taylor,  for  the  settlement  of  the  suit  against  him,  and  subsequently  that 
a  distinct  offer  of  $25,000,  and  the  costs  of  suit,  was  made  in  his  behalf,, 
and  my  advice  was  requested  as  to  the  expediency  of  accepting  this  offer. 
Under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  I  thought  it  for  the  interest  of  the 
United  States  to  do  so,  and  so  advised  the  collector. 

The  settlement  was  accordingly  consummated  on  the  2d  of  November 
last,  by  the  payment  of  that  amount,  and  all  costs,  to  me.  About  this  same 
time,  proposals  were  made  for  the  settlement  of  the  suit  against  George 
Shaw,  who,  after  giving  bail  for  $5,000,  had  left  the  United  States  ;  and 
on  the  payment  of  $15,000  and  costs,  to  me,  on  the  11th  of  November, 
this  suit  was  also  settled  upon  my  advice.  The  suits  against  Bradbury, 
Samuel  Shaw,  Bottomly,  and  Dixon,  have  been  since  settled,  on  the  days 
of  the  dates  of  the  receipts  in  those  cases — the  settlement  thereof  on  pay- 
ment of  the  sum  mentioned  in  the  receipt  in  each  case  and  costs  of  suit. 
I  have  no  doubt,  whatsoever,  that  in  each  of  these  cases  the  interests  of 
the  United  States  required  the  settlement  on  the  terms  which  were  accept- 
ed by  the  collector  and  myself,  and  which,  in  each  case,  as  I  understand, 
were  also  approved  of  by  the  naval  officer  and  surveyor. 

For  the  reasons  mentioned  in  my  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  25th  ultimo, 
my  report  in  these  cases  was  delayed  until  after  the  12th  instant,  the  pay- 
ment in  one  of  the  cases  being  in  checks,  not  actually  paid  until  that  day, 
and  this  is  the  first  day,  since,  that  I  have  not  been  required  in  the  circuit 
court  now  sitting. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

B.  F.  BUTLER, 
Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq.,  United  States  District  Attorney. 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


Hep.  No.  669.  221 

P.  S.  In  addition  to  the  five  receipts  above  mentioned,  I  also  enclose  a 
receipt  for  the  settlement  of  a  suit  directed  by  the  collector  on  the  18th  No- 
vember last,  to  be  commenced  against  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  which  suit  was 
settled  on  the  30th  ultimo,  on  payment  of  $20,000  and  costs.  The  state- 
s'' nients  above  made  apply  to  this  case,  except  that  the  defendant  has  been 
out  of  the  United  States  for  more  than  a  year,  in  consequence  of  which  no 
writ  was  actually  delivered  to  the  marshal, 
to  B.  F.  BUTLER, 

er  U.  S.  District  Attorney* 


(  No.  10.  ) 

Letter  from  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  to  J.  Hoyt,  Collector, 

Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 
e.  December  21,  1839. 

ie!  Sir  :  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  16th  instant,  advising  me  that  a 
st.  suit  directed  by  you  on  the  28th  November  last,  "  against  Samuel  Shaw, 
o-  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  for  a  forfeiture,  and  to  hold  him 
ed  to  bail  in  the  sum  of  $10,000,  had,  for  the  reasons  stated  in  the  case  of 
lil     John  Taylor,  jr,  been  settled  for  the  sum  of  $5,000,  and  the  share  of  the 

United  States  (viz  :  $2,500)  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States."  I 
ie  have  also  received  three  other  letters  from  you,  of  the  same  date,  advising 
at  me  that,  for  similar  reasons,  suits  instituted  against  J.  Bottomly,  jr.,  for 
If,  $25,000,  against  Henry  Dixon,  for  $10,000,  and  against  Samuel  Bradbury, 
r,  for  $20,000,  had  been  compromised,  by  the  receipt,  in  the  case  of  Bottom- 
ie     ly,  of  $20,000,  in  the  case  of  Dixon,  of  $6,000,  in  the  case  of  Bradbury,  of 

$7,500;  and  that  one-half  each  of  said  several  sums  had  been  passed  to 
;r  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  as  their  share  of  the  forfeiture, 
ie  As  you  refer  in  all  these  letters  to  the  reasons  assigned  in  the  case  of 
;e  John  Taylor,  above  referred  to,  for  the  reasons  which  led  to  the  compro- 
d  mise,  I  send  you,  enclosed,  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  this  office  to  the  district 
r,     attorney,  dated  November  25,  in  relation  to  that  case,  and  beg  to  say  that, 

after  suit  has  been  instituted  and  reported  to  this  office,  no  settlement  or 
is     adjustment  should  be  made,  unless  by  the  judgment  of  the  court,  or  with 

the  sanction  of  this  office,  after  a  full  report,  from  the  district  attorney  and 
t,      collector,  of  the  reasons  for  the  same. 

if         I  have  to  request  that  you  will  report  fully  all  the  facts,  in  regard  to  each 
!•      of  these  cases,  to  this  office,  as  soon  as  possible,  as  well  those  that  will  show 
1.      the  exact  ground  on  which  suit  was  instituted,  and  the  nature  of  the  suit, 
whether  for  penalty,  forfeiture,  or  duties,  as  those  which  will  show  why 
),      the  causes  were  not  permitted  to  take  the  regular  course  of  judicial  adjust- 
ment.   I  beg  to  request,  also,  that  no  future  case,  reported  to  this  office  as 
sent  to  the  district  attorney  for  suit,  be  withdrawn,  in  any  way,  from  the 
t      regular  course  of  adjudication,  without  all  the  facts  being  first  reported  to 
this  office,  and  the  receipt  of  its  sanction  obtained. 
Very  respectfully,  yours, 

HENRY  D.  GILPIN, 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury.. 

Jesse  Hott,  Esq.,  Collector,  New  York. 


222  Rep.  No.  669. 

(  No.  11.  ) 

Letter  from  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  to  B.  F.  Butler,  Dis- 

.  trict  Attorney. 

Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 

December  23,  1839. 

Sir:  I  have  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Hoyt,  dated  the  16th  instant, 
advising  me  that  a  suit  ordered  on  the  28th  ultimo,  against  Samuel  Shaw, 
under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  for  a  forfeiture  of 
$1 0,000,  had,  for  reasons  similar  to  those  stated  in  the  case  of  John  Taylor, 
jr.,  been  settled  by  the  payment  of  the  sum  of  $5,000 ;  one-half  of  which 
he  had  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States.  1  have  also  received  three 
other  letters  of  the  same  date  from  Mr.  Hoyt,  stating  that,  for  similar  rea- 
sons, suits  ordered  against  J.  Bottomly,  jr.,  for  $25,000,  against  Henry 
Dixon,  for  $10,000,  and  against  Samuel  Bradbury,  for  $20,000,  had  also 
been  settled  by  the  payment,  in  the  case  of  Bottomly,  of  $20,000,  in  the 
case  of  Dixon,  of  $6,000,  and  in  the  case  of  Bradbury  of  $7,500 ;  and  that 
•one-half  of  each  of  said  sums  had  been  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  United 
States,  as  their  share  of  these  forfeitures. 

For  the  reason  which  led  to  this  mode  of  settling  the  above  cases,  the 
collector  refers  to  his  report  in  the  case  of  John  Taylor,  jr.,  above  men- 
tioned. In  regard  to  that  case,  I  wrote  you  on  the  25th  of  last  montfi,  and 
beg  to  refer  you  to  that  letter,  as  expressing  my  wish  that,  in  all  cases  sent 
for  suit,  a  report  may  be  made  to  this  office  of  any  facts  and  circumstances 
on  which  it  is  deemed  advisable  to  withdraw  the  case  from  the  regular 
course  of  legal  decision.  In  the  present  instance  you  will  oblige  me  by 
a  report  of  all  such  facts,  as  well  those  that  will  show  the  exact  grounds 
on  which  suit  was  instituted,  and  the  nature  of  the  suit,  whether  for  pen- 
alty, forfeiture,  or  to  recover  unpaid  duties,  as  those  which  will  show  why 
the  cases  were  not  permitted  to  take  the  usual  mode  of  judicial  adjustment. 

I  must  also  beg  to  repeat  my  wish  that  no  future  case  reported  to  this 
office  as  in  suit  be  withdrawn,  in  any  way,  from  the  regular  course  of  ad- 
judication, without  all  the  facts  being  first  reported  to  this  office,  and  the 
receipt  of  its  sanction  obtained. 

Very  respectfully,  yours, 

HENRY  D.  GILPIN, 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 

Benjamin  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney,  Neiv  York. 


(  No.  12.  ) 

Letter  from  J.  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  H  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 
enclosing  correspondence  of  J.  Hoyt  and  B.  F.  Butler,  Nos.  1,2,  and  3. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  January  7,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  have  not  had  leisure  till  now  to  answer  your  letter  of  the  21st 
December  last,  in  relation  to  the  case  of  Samuel  Bradbury,  Henry  Dixon, 
'Samuel  Shaw,  and  James  Bottomly,  jr. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


223 


You  request  me  to  report  "  fully  all  the  facts  in  regard  to  each  of  those 
cases,  as  soon  as  possible,  as  well  as  those  that  will  show  the  exact  grounds 
on  which  suit  was  instituted,  and  the  nature  of  the  suit,  whether  for  pen- 
alty, forfeiture,  or  duties,  as  those  which  will  show  why  the  cases  were 
not  permitted  to  take  the  regular  course  of  judicial  adjustment. " 

As  the  cases  are  not  very  dissimilar  in  any  respect,  except  as  to 
amounts,  I  will  incorporate  the  facts  concerning  them  all  in  one  letter,  for 
the  purpose  of  saving  time  and  labor.  I  will  answer,  in  the  first  place,  the 
part  of  your  inquiry  which  relates  to  the  ground  on  which  the  suits  were 
instituted.    I  will  say — 

1st.  That  on  the  6th  and  28th  of  August,  and  on  the  20th  November 
last,  1  reported  to  you,  according  to  instructions,  that  the  suits  against  the 
persons  named  were  commenced  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  17.99. 

2d.  On  the  16th  December  I  reported  the  same  thing  by  letter,  with  the 
addition  that  the  suit  was  for  a  forfeiture;  which  letter  you  admit  the  re- 
ceipt of. 

3d.  To  make  the  matter  as  clear  as  I  have  the  power  to  do,  I  send  you 
copies  of  my  directions  to  the  district  attorney  to  commence  the  suits,  under 
dates  of  July  31,  August  10,  and  November  18,  1S39,  (marked  No.  1, 
No.  2,  and  No.  3,)  which  show  the  quo  anirno  when  the  proceeding  was 
commenced. 

In  relation  to  the  other  branch  of  the  inquiry,  viz  :  Why  the  suits  were 
not  permitted  to  take  the  regular  course  of  judicial  adjustment  ?  I  have  to 
state — 

1st.  My  experience  with  the  courts  and  juries  in  reference  to  "judicial 
adjustments"  in  this  district,  in  cases  where  the  collector  and  the  United 
States  are  interested,  leads  me  to  distrust  the  value  of  such  "adjustments." 

2d.  It  was  because  I  received,  in  my  own  opinion,  as  well  as  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  district  attorney,  a  much  larger  sum  out  of  court  than  we  could 
have  obtained  by  remaining  in. 

The  history  of  the  suits  referred  to  is  substantially  as  follows  :  Soon 
after  I  came  into  office,  in  March,  183S,  I  became  satisfied  that  immense 
frauds  had  been  practised  on  the  United  States,  by  importers  of  woollen 
goods,  by  means  of  undervaluations.  The  defendants  in  the  suits  referred 
to  were  of  the  number  engaged  in  that  business.  I  was  also  satisfied  that 
this  practice  had  been  going  on  for  several  years,  and  with  the  knowledge 
and  probable  participation  of  one  of  the  deputies  in  this  office.  I  seized 
such  of  the  goods  so  situated  as  had  not  already  been  delivered  to  the  im- 
porters. On  the  trial  of  the  case  of  Samuel  R.  Wood,  which  took  place  in 
June,  1839,  the  modus  operandi  of  those,  proceedings  was  shown  ;  and  in 
some  of  the  letters  of  Wood,  written  in  New  York,  to  his  father  in  England, 
which  were  read  on  the  trial,  he  referred  to  others  by  name  ;  and  it  was 
proved  that  he  had  said  that  he  had  done  no  more  than  the  other  "  York- 
shiremen"  had  done.  When  this  trial  took  place,  I  ascertained,  for  the 
first  time,  the  form  of  the  action  commenced  against  Wood  by  the  late 
district  attorney  was  the  common-law  action  for  debt  for  duties  unpaid. 
I  ascertained  from  the  present  district  attorney  that  he  had  great  difficulty 
in  making  the  proofs,  on  the  ground  that  the  burden  of  showing  the  exact 
indebtedness  rested  with  the  United  States,  and  he  was  therefore  compel- 
led to  show  the  exact  cost  of  the  goods,  and  other  particulars,  to  fix  an 
amount  that  we  were  entitled  to  recover,  which  he  was  enabled  to  do  by 
means  of  documents  accidentally  falling  into  my  hands,  through  the  in- 


224 


Rep.  No.  669. 


strumentality  of  the  commissioner  in  bankruptcy  in  England.  Such  means 
of  proof  could  not  be  expected  in  any  other  case,  and  hence  I  went  imo  an 
investigation  of  the  various  acts  of  Congress,  to  see  what  other  remedies 
we  had  by  law  for  similar  offences,  when  I  happened  to  fall  on  that  section 
of  the  act  of  1799,  familiarly  called  here,  by  some  members  of  the  legal 
profession,  the  "  bloody  66th." 

This  section  was  deemed  peculiarly  applicable — 

1st.  Because  it  is  the  only  provision  under  which  the  parties  could  now 
be  held  to  bail. 

2d.  Without  the  power  of  holding  to  bail,  the  greatest  virtue  of  the  pro- 
ceedings would  be  lost. 

3d.  Under  this  section,  also,  if  we  prove  the  goods  were  entered  under 
value,  without  showing  how  much  under,  prima  facie  there  was  cause  of 
forfeiture. 

4th,  and  last.  Though  by  no  means  diminishing  the  usefulness  of  the 
remedy,  it  makes,  with  the  aid  of  other  sections,  (not  necessary  to  name,) 
a  provision  for  the  collector  and  other  officers  of  the  Government;  but,  as 
an  equivalent  for  the  benefits  inuring  to  the  collector  and  his  associates,  it 
confers  on  the  United  States  one-half  of  the  recovery,  instead  of  the  defi- 
ciency of  duties,  which,  in  the  case  of  Wood,  was  shown  to  be  one-third 
of  the  woollens  duty. 

Upon  this  discovery  of  the  section,  which  I  think  had  never  been  acted 
upon  before,  I  examined  the  office,  to  see  what  papers  were  on  file  relating 
to  the  business  of  the  "  Yorkshiremen,"  referred  to  by  Mr.  Wood.  I  went 
back  as  far  as  1834,  and  found  a  great  number  of  entries  made  by  the  per- 
sons referred  to  in  the  copies  of  letters  I  send  you,  but  no  invoices,  or  very 
few,  indeed,  prior  to  the  time  when  I  came  into  office ;  the  effect  of  the 
absence  of  which  I  have  not  the  leisure  to  expatiate  upon,  if  I  deemed  it 
necessary  to  do  so,  in  addressing  a  law  officer  of  the  Department ;  but  I 
directed  the  suits  to  be  commenced  against  all  the  persons,  and  for  causes 
named  in  the  letter  to  the  district  attorney  before  referred  to. 

You  will  see,  by  my  letter  to  the  district  attorney  of  the  31st  July,  I  di- 
rected suits  against  four  persons ;  two  of  whom,  Bradbury  and  George 
Shaw,  were  arrested.  This  created  a  sensation  and  an  alarm  among  the 
whole  of  that  class  of  people.  I  directed  them  to  be  held  to  bail  in  the 
sum  of  $20,000  each,  this  being  considered  double  the  amount  of  the  pro- 
bable claim;  for  in  this  district  the  rule  is  to  hold  to  bail  (that  is,  by  the 
ac  etiam  clause  in  the  writ)  for  double  the  amount  of  the  demand.  Such 
was  the  state  of  feeling  for  the  moment,  that  they  could  not  give  bail  for  a 
sum  over  $5,000  each.  They  did  give  bail  to  that  amount,  and  then  fled 
to  Canada.  The  others  named  in  the  letter,  (viz  :  Taylor  and  Piatt  &  Dun- 
can) also  went  to  Canada. 

The  district  attorney  and  myself  did  not  deem  it  wise  to  permit  Brad- 
bury and  Shaw  to  go  to  prison  for  want  of  bail,  and  therefore  directed  the 
marshal  to  take  it  in  the  small  sum  of  $5,000. 

At  the  same  time  the  persons  above  mentioned  fled,  most  of  those  refei- 
red  to  in  the  letter  of  the  Sth  August  went  also,  and  among  the  rest  Sam- 
uel Shaw  and  Henry  Dixon.  By  that  letter  you  will  perceive  I  directed 
them  to  be  held  to  bail  each  in  the  sum  of  $  10,000.  Harris,  John  Piatt, 
and  Joseph  Broadbent,  jr.,  also  named  in  that  letter,  were  arrested;  and  I 
consented  to  reduce  the  bail  in  all  those  cases,  for  reasons  that  operated  in 
the  cases  of  Bradbury  and  G.  Shaw.    Dixon  and  S.  Shaw  were  then  in 


Eep.  No.  669. 


225 


Canada,  and  William  Broadbent  was,  and  now  is,  in  England.  Dixon 
and  Shaw  came  back  after  their  friends  had  settled  the  suits,  as  I  have 
before  reported  to  yon,  as  did  also  Bradbury,  Taylor,  and  G.  Shaw.  Wil- 
liam Broadbent  and  Piatt  &  Duncan's  friends  are  now  negotiating  ;  but  they 
will  not  return,  unless  the  suits  against  them  can  be  settled. 

The  only  suit  we  have  settled  for  a  sum  less  than  one-half  the  amount 
of  the  ac  etiam  in  the  writ  was  that  against  S.  Bradbury  ;  and,  in  this  case 
especially,  it  was  urged  that  we  had  goods  of  his  of  considerable  value 
under  seizure,  with  a  prospect  of  their  being  condemned,  and  that  he  had 
recently  been  afflicted  with  a  paralysis,  and  that  he  was  a  man  of  much 
more  moderate  means  than  we  had  supposed.  Under  these  views  of  the 
case,  we  were  induced  to  take  the  sum  of  $7,500,  referred  to  in  my  former 
letter. 

In  settling  the  suits,  we  took  into  consideration,  among  other  things — 

1st.  The  ability  of  the  defendants  to  pay,  or  rather  the  probable  amount 
they  would  pay  sooner  than  not  return,  so  far  as  relates  to  those  whom 
we  had  not  arrested,  and  those  we  had  arrested,  and  who  had  subsequent- 
ly fled,  under  a  small  amount  of  bail. 

2d.  The  amount  of  business  they  had  done  upon  the  false  and  fraudu- 
lent principle  alleged,  which  formed  the  data  upon  which  the  first  proposi- 
tion somewhat  rested. 

3d.  The  probability  of  proving  the  transactions,  as  we  supposed  them  to 
have  occurred,  from  the  means  within  our  power. 

4th.  The  question,  whether  they  acted  in  the  transactions  as  principals 
or  agents,  and  the  probability  of  the  readiness  of  the  principals  to  protect 
the  agents. 

On  these  points  I  consulted  with  some  of  the  intelligent  officers  in  this 
department ;  not  with  the  naval  officer,  who  was  one  of  the  principal  ap- 
praisers of  the  port  when  the  transactions  took  place  ;  not  with  the  two 
other  appraisers,  who  were  colleagues  of  the  present  naval  officer  ;  but  I 
consulted  those  who  knew  something  of  the  affairs  of  the  suspected  indi- 
viduals, and  we  made  out  the  amounts  upon  the  basis  before  stated,  and 
settled  the  suits  accordingly. 

It  would  not  be  out  of  place  to  remark  that  these  persons  are  all  foreign- 
ers, and  but  temporary  residents  among  us,  and  therefore  without  any  of 
those  ties  or  attachments  that  would  bind  them  to  this  rather  than  to  any 
other  country.  This  view  of  the  case  formed  one  of  the  many  considera- 
tions in  fixing  on  the  amount  which  we  received. 

The  case  of  Bottomly,  referred  to  in  your  letter,  stood  upon  somewhat 
different  grounds.  In  April,  1838,  I  seized  some  of  his  goods,  which  were 
subsequently  condemned  ;  some,  also,  were  seized  in  Boston,  which  are 
not  yet  disposed  of.  He  went  to  England,  by  the  way  of  Canada,  about 
the  month  of  May  in  that  year.  It  was  rumored  that  he  was  anxious  to 
return,  and  that  he  might  probably  be  out  in  one  of  the  steamers,  and  I 
ordered  a  writ  to  be  issued  against  him.  This  fact  became  known,  and  I 
was  then  informed  that  he  would  not  como  out  as  long  as  the  claim  was 
hanging  over  him.  I  then  gave  notice  that  I  would  cause  him  to  be  sued 
in  England,  and  that  he  might  as  well  litigate  the  question  here  as  there. 
I  suggested  that  I  should  ask  the  President  for  liberty  to  send  out  and  sue 
him,  and  should  request  the  district  attorney  to  prepare  the  requisite  affi- 
davits for  that  purpose,  to  go  out  by  the  British  Queen,  in  the  December 
voyage  of  that  vessel.   This  produced  an  offer  from  his  friends  for  a  settle- 


226 


Rep.  No.  669. 


ment  of  the  suit ;  which  was  settled,  as  I  reported  to  you  in  my  letter  of 
the  16th  ultimo. 

In  reference  to  this  settlement,  it  must  be  observed — 

1st.  That  nothing  could  have  been  done  in  our  own  courts,  unless  we 
could  have  arrested  the  defendant  within  our  jurisdiction. 

2d.  It  was  not  certain  that  the  Government  would  have  consented  to 
resort  to  the  courts  of  any  other  country  for  redress  ;  and,  if  they  had  so 
consented,  other  considerations  might  have  influenced  the  question  of  a 
recovery. 

I  have  now  given  you,  as  I  believe,  a  true  history  of  the  substance  of 
the  proceedings  about  which  you  inquired,  which  I  trust  will  prove  satis- 
factory, as  I  am  induced  to  think  it  will,  from  the  tenor  of  your  letter  to 
the  district  attorney,  of  the  25th  November,  a  copy  of  which  you  was  so 
kind  as  to  send  me. 

You  direct  me  not  to  selile  any  more  of  those  kind  of  cases,  unless  by 
your  approbation,  on  a  report  of  the  circumstances  of  each  case.  There 
is  no  difference  in  the  cases  which  I  have  reported  as  commenced  under 
the  section  referred  to,  except  the  difference  in  the  amount  of  business 
done  by  individuals.  All  the  considerations  applicable  to  one  will  apply 
equally  t3  the  other;  and, as  some  are  now  negotiating  through  their  friends, 
I  would  be  glad  to  know  whether  I  am  to  make  a  full  report  on  each  case 
before  closing  a  negotiation,  after  giving  this  general  history  of  all  the 
cases. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


[No.  1.  ] 

Letter  from  J.  Hoy/,  Collector,  to  B.  F.  Butler,  District  Attorney, 

Custom-IIouse,  New  York,  July  31,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  had  several  conversations  with  you  in  relation  to  commenc- 
ing actions  against  certain  individuals  who  have  for  some  years  past  en- 
tered woollen  goods  very  much  under  value,  with  the  view  of  defrauding 
the  United  States  of  a  large  amount  of  duties  justly  due  to  them. 

I  think  I  should  no  longer  omit  to  give  you  directions  to  issue  the  writs 
in  the  cases  alhided  to. 

I  therefore  wish  you  to  issue  such  writs  against  the  following  persons, 
for  the  following  sums,  to  recover  the  forfeiture  contemplated  by  the  66th 
section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  viz  : 

John  Taylor,  jr.         -  -  $50,000 

Piatt  &  Duncan,        -  -  30,000 

Samuel  Bradbury,      -  -  20,000 

George  Stiaw  -  -  20,000 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


227 


[  No.  2.  ] 

Letter  from  J.  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  B.  F.  Butler,  District  Attorney. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  August  8,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  wish  you  to  commence  suits  against  (he  following  persons,  for  the 
recovery  of  forfeitures  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799, 
and  hold  them  to  bail  in  the  following  sums  : 

Henry  Dixon,  for       -  -  $10,000 

John  Harris,  for        -  -  25,000 

Samuel  Shaw,  for      -  -  10,000 

John  Piatt,  for  -  -  10,000 

Joseph  Broadbent,  jr.,  for  -  10,000 
William  Broadbent,  for  -  25,000 
Mr.  Harris  is  a  man  of  large  means,  and  is  able  to  give  bail  in  any  sum. 
The  means  of  the  others  I  am  riot  acquainted  with.  Mr.  Charles  Ken- 
worthy  belongs  to  the  same  family  of  importers,  and  was  formerly  a  clerk 
to  George  Shaw,  and  it  may  be  useful  to  examine  him  on  the  usual  affida- 
vit that  he  is  to  depart  from  the  country. 

Samuel  Shaw  went  to  Canada  about  a  month  since,  and  I  doubt  whether 
he  has  returned.  His  store  is  with  his  brother  James,  in  Pearl  street,  and 
his  children  are  here  ;  but  he  and  his  wife  went  to  Canada,  but  are  expect- 
ed back. 

It  is  said  William  Broadbent  is  to  be  back  in  the  Liverpool,  which  will 
be  here  in  about  four  days. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


[  No.  3.  ] 

Letter  from  J.  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  B.  F.  Butler,  District  Attorney. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  November  18,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  to  request  that  you  will  issue  a  writ  against  James  Bottomly, 
jr.,  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  to  recover  a  forfeit- 
ure in  the  sum  of  $25,000. 

It  is  understood  that  this  gentleman  is  now  in  England,  but  I  take  this 
proceeding  now,  so  as  that  it  may  be  considered  the  commencement  of  a  suit 
under  the  4th  section  of  the  act  of  28th  February,  1S39  amending  the  ju- 
dicial system  of  the  United  States.    (See  session  laws,  page  24.) 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


[  No.  4.  j 
[unofficial.] 

Letter  from  Jesse  Hoyt  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 

New  York,  November  19,  1S39. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  send  you  an  official  to-day,  in  relation  to  the  settlement  of  a 
suit  against  John  Taylor,  jr.,  and  also  one  against  George  Shaw.  I  send  you  a 
3* 


228 


Rep.  No.  669. 


copy  of  a  letter  I  addressed  to  the  district  attorney  on  the  3d  of  October  last, 
in  relation  to  the  propriety  of  settling  the  same,  to  which  he  responded,  and 
the  suit  was  settled,  and  the  same  course  was  adopted  in  relation  to  Mr. 
Shaw.  There  are  several  others  who  are  negotiating.  I  will  settle  all  I 
can,  for  it  is  a  hopeless  task  to  get  any  verdicts  from  the  hands  of  Judge 
Betts  and  Mr.  Waddell's  juries.  We  tried  two  cases  of  seizure  last  March, 
which  were  as  plain  and  obvious  as  any  thing  could  be,  but  the  jury  ac- 
quitted them.  I  have  not  reported  them,  because  I  directed  the  district  at- 
torney to  make  cases,  and  move  to  set  aside  the  verdicts,  on  the  ground  of 
their  being  against  evidence — so  plain  did  I  consider  them.  In  the  cases 
of  Taylor  and  Shaw,  and  the  others  commenced  under  similar  circumstances, 
we  should  have  had  great  difficulty  in  recovering,  for  the  reason  that  we 
had  not  the  possession  of  the  original  or  any  other  invoices,  and  therefore 
had  no  means  of  showing  from  whom  the  goods  were  purchased ;  but  the 
parties  supposed  that  I  knew  much  more  of  these  affairs  than  I  actually 
did  ;  and,  having  the  fear  of  the  collector  somewhat  before  their  eyes,  they 
had  thought  best  to  settle  the  suits  ;  and  others  entertain  the  same  opinion, 
and  no  doubt  will  make  satisfactory  terms. 

Verv  respectfully, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hexry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


[  No.  5.  ] 

Letter  from  Jesse  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  Levi  Woodbury ,  Secretary  of  the 

Treasury. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  November  19,  1839. 
Sir  :  On  the  5th  of  August  last,  I  wrote  you,  among  other  things,  that  I 
directed  suits  to  be  commenced  against  John  Taylor,  jr.,  George  Shaw,  and 
many  others,  for  transactions  alleged  to  be  fraudulent  at  the  custom-house 
in  this  city.  I  have  settled  the  suits  against  Taylor  and  Shaw,  receiving 
from  the  former  $25,000  and  the  latter  $15,000.  The  share  of  the  United 
States  was  placed  to  their  credit  this  day,  in  the  books  of  this  office.  I  now 
send  you  a  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  by  me  to  the  district  attorney,  under 
date  of  the  3d  of  October,  explaining  the  reason  why  I  thought  the  suit 
should  be  settled  on  the  terms  proposed.  A  like  reason  existed  in  the  case 
of  Shaw.  Several  of  the  persons  referred  to  in  my  letter  to  you  are  now 
negotiating  for  settlements  for  similar  reasons,  and  I  shall  probably  close 
with  them,  if  the  district  attorney,  as  he  did  in  the  two  cases  referred  to, 
recommend  that  course. 

Verv  respectfully,  vour  obedient  servant, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


229 


[  No.  6.  ] 

Letter  from  Jesse  Hoyt  to  B.  F.  Butler,  referred  to  in  No.  4. 

Custom-House,  New\ork,  October  3,  1839. 

Sir  :  On  the  31st  day  of  July  last,  1  requested  you  to  issue  a  writ  against 
John  Taylor,  jr.,  and  to  hold  him  to  bail  under  the  G{3th  section  of  the  act 
of  2d  March,  1799,  in  the  sum  of  $50,000,  for  a  forfeiture  growing  out  of 
fraudulent  entries  at  the  custom-house  in  this  city  for  a  long  period  of  time. 
The  writ,  I  understand,  was  issued  on  that  day,  but  that  he  left  this  State 
for  Canada  to  avoid  arrest,  and  that  he  has  not  therefore  been  arrested, 
and  that  he  is  now  in  Montreal.  I  have  reason  to  believe,  from  informa- 
tion I  have  received,  that  he  will  not  again  return  to  the  United  States, 
unless  that  suit  be  disposed  of;  and  some  have  gone  so  far  as  to  inform  me 
that  he  had  actually  taken  his  passage  at  Montreal  for  England,  and  pur- 
poses to  sail  on  the  20th  of  this  month. 

An  overture  has  been  made  to  settle  that  suit,  through  Jonathan  Miller, 
Esq.,  his  counsel,  and  he  has  offered  the  sum  of  $25,000  for  a  settlement 
of  it,  with  the  understanding  that  no  other  one  is  to  be  commenced,  under 
that  section,  for  any  previous  transactions  of  his  at  this  custom-house.  As 
there  are  no  other  claims  which  I  purpose  to  enforce  under  that  section,  or 
by  any  remedy  known  at  the  common  law,  for  the  same  matters  embraced 
in  that  section,  except  those  intended  to  be  included  in  said  suit,  and  as  I 
am  firmly  persuaded  that  Mr.  Taylor  will  not  again  bring  himself  within, 
'the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States,  so  long  as  the  present  process  is  out 
against  him  ;  and  also  that  this  is  the  utmost  sum  that  he  or  his  friends  will 
give  in  liquidation  of  the  claim  in  question;  and  upon  a  due  consideration 
of  the  difficulty  in  collecting  any  thing,  without  first  arresting  him ;  and 
also  of  the  expense  and  delay  we  must  encounter  in  establishing  by  legal 
technical  proof  the  particulars  and  amount  of  the  claim  in  question,  (a  point 
which,  from  our  frequent  consultations,  you  are  perfectly  aware  of,)  I  am 
of  opinion  that  it  is  to  the  interest  of  the  United  States  to  accept  of  the  offer 
referred  to  ;  and  if  you  concur  with  me  in  this  opinion,  you  will  please  ta 
receive  the  said  -^25,000  and  your  costs,  and  discontinue  said  suit. 

Respectfully, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

Benj.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


(  No.  1 3. ) 

Letter  from  M.  Birchard,  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  to  J.  Hoy  I,  Col* 

lector. 


Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 

January  23,  1S40. 
Sir  :  Your  report  of  the  7th  instant,  in  reply  to  a  letter  of  my  predeces- 
sor, dated  the  21st  of  December  last,  has  been  considered.    I  am  happy  to 
inform  you  that  the  reasons  therein  given  for  the  settlement  of  the  several 


230 


Rep.  Ne.  669. 


suits  named  are  such  as  would  have  induced  this  office  to  advise  the  course 
taken  respecting  them,  had  it  been  consulted. 

With  respect  to  the  disposition  of  the  proceeds,  I  have  at  present  no  re- 
marks to  make  ;  the  question,  for  the  time  being,  is  a  subject  for  the  con- 
sideration of  the  First  Comptroller. 

My  predecessor,  in  his  letter  of  the  21st  ultimo,  instructed  you  "not  tc 
withdraw  in  any  way  from  the  regular  course  of  adjudication  a  case  which 
had  been  reported  to  this  office,  without  its  sanction,  upon  a  full  report  o] 
all  the  facts."  You  mention  that,  in  the  cases  which  you  have  reported 
as  commenced  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  all  the  considera- 
tions applicable  to  those  disposed  of  will  apply;  that  there  is  no  difference 
except  in  the  amount ;  and  that  some  of  the  defendants,  through  the  me- 
dium of  their  friends,  are  negotiating  for  a  settlement ;  and  you  inquire 
whether  a  full  report  in  each  case  must  be  made,  before  closing  the  negoti- 
ation, after  the  general  history  given  by  you  of  all  the  cases.  I  have,  with- 
in the  three  days  that  I  have  now  held  this  office,  already  learned  too  much 
of  the  perplexities  of  your  office  to  willingly  require  from  you  an  iota  ol 
unnecessary  labor. 

My  predecessor  informs  me  he  had  full  confidence  in  both  yourself  and 
the  district  attorney;  and  he  exacted  the  report  of  the  7th  instant  to  prevent 
a  precedent  which,  in  other  hands,  might  possibly  be  abused.  It  is  unne- 
cessary for  me  to  remark  that  I  have  equal  confidence,  and  also  think  thai 
it  is  scarce  ever  proper  to  depart  from  wholesome  regulations.  Tn  the  cases 
about  which  negotiations  are  pending,  1  shall  expect  a  full  report  in  each 
case,  as  directed  by  Mr.  Gilpin,  containing  the  terms  proposed,  and  the  mo- 
tives for  accepting  them. 

It  is  presumed  that  the  arrangements  to  settle  can  always  be  made,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  this  office.  By  this  means',  the  joint  report  of  your- 
self and  the  district  attorney,  approved  by  the  Department,  will  tend  to  pre- 
vent unfavorable  inferences  and  misrepresentations,  too  frequently  encour- 
aged by  interested  or  bad-minded  people,  and  at  least  will  furnish  perpetual 
evidence  of  the  correctness  of  your  official  conduct. 

Yours  of  the  20th,  calling  my  attention  to  this  subject,  was  received  this 
morning. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

M.  BIRCHARD, 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 
J.  Hoyt,  Esq.  Collector  of  the  Customs,  New  York. 


L. 

United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  August  22,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  the  inquiries  made  in  your  letter  of  the  17th  ultimo,  in 
respect  to  the  suits  hereinafter  mentioned,  I  have  the  honor  to  make  the 
following  report : 

On  taking  charge  of  this  office,  I  found,  among  other  unfinished  business, 
three  suits  against  Lachaise  &  Fouche,  importers  of  French  goods,  residents 
in  this  city,  on  penal  bonds  Nos.  3S5,  3S6,  and  3S7,  all  dated  the  20th  ol 
April,  1S3S;  the  first,  in  the  penally  of  $9,000.  on  an  importation  in  the 


Rep.  No.  669.  231 

hip  Viile  de  Lyons,  and  two  others  in  the  penalty  of  $14,000  each — the  one 
in  an  importation  in  the  ship  Rhone,  and  the  other  in  the  Charlemagne. 
In  each  of  these  cases  a  demurrer  had  been  interposed  to  the  declaration, 
but  no  further  proceeding  had  been  had  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 
I  also  found,  among  the  papers  of  the  office,  instructions  from  the  collector 
to  file  informations  against  122  packages  of  French  goods,  imported  by  the 
same  persons,  and  which  the  collector  had  seized,  on  the  ground  that  the 
same  had  been  fraudulently  entered,  as  long  since  as  May,  183S;  and  a 
further  instruction  to  commence  a  suit  against  the  same  parties,  for  unpaid 
duties,  alleged  by  the  collector  to  amount  to  #  17,000,  on  other  goods  pre- 

•  viously  entered,  as  he  supposed,  at  a  fraudulent  undervaluation.  No  in- 
formation, however,  had  been  filed,  nor  had  any  suit  for  the  alleged  unpaid 

lit  duties  been  commenced.  On  the  other  hand,  a  suit  had  been  commenced  by 
the  importers,  and  was  then  pending,  against  the  collector  personally,  for  the 

-  purpose  of  charging  him  with  damages  for  alleged  illegalities  in  the  seiz- 
ure of  the  greater  part  of  these  goods,  in  which  the  damages  were  laid  at 
#50,000. 

tat    On  looking  into  these  matters,  I  found  that  the  filing  of  the  inrormations 
had  been  delayed,  partly  by  negotiations  for  the  settlement  of  the  whole 
ariicontroversy,  and  partly  by  difficulties  as  to  the  form  of  the  proceeding,  and 
v :'j  by  dispute  in  relation  to  the  question  of  custody,  settled  at  the  last  term  of 
Mi  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.    Immediately  after  the  disposition 
U  ;of  that  question,  I  took  up  the  subject,  and  afterwards  filed  three  several  in- 
formations, one  against  32,  another  against  61,  and  the  third  against  24 
packages,  some  of  them  of  dutiable  goods,  but  others,  and  apparently  a  very 
large  proportion,  of  free  goods,  which  had  been  seized  at  the  same  time 
with  the  others.  In  these  informations,  allegations  were  inserted  for  the  pur- 
pose of  condemning  the  free  goods  as  well  as  those  chargeable  with  duties, 
i-  though  with  less  prospect  of  success.    In  each  of  the  cases,  Lachaise  & 
prekFouche  appeared  as  claimants;  and  they  also  renewed  the  proposals,  which 

•  had  been  before  made,  for  a  settlement  of  the  whole  controversy;  which, 
[uj  after  much  negotiation,  was  finally  agreed  on,  with  the  approbation  of  the 

custom-house  officers,  on  the  following  terms : 

1.  In  the  three  seizure  cases,  the  duties  were  estimated  at  #6,300;  which 
sum  was  paid  by  Lachaise  &  Fouche  to  the  collector,  and  the  goods  were 
bonded  at  #21,000 — the  two  sums  (#27,300)  being  the  agreed  value  of 
the  goods  described  in  the  informations — and  which  sum  of  #21,000  was 
divided  as  follows  : 

Agreed  value  of  the  32  cases  -----  #5,744 
Agreed  value  of  the  61  cases  -----  10,950 
Agreed  value  of  the  24  cases  -----  4,306 


21,000 


A  decree  of  condemnation  was  then  entered  in  each  case  by  consent,  and 
the  three  bonds  paid  into  court.  The  claimants  also  paid  the  taxable  costs 
of  the  clerk,  #278  45,  of  the  district  attorney,  #175  62,  and  of  the  mar- 
i\  shal,  $777  56 — #1,231  63.  The  counsel  fees  of  the  district  attorney  in 
these  three  cases,  and  in  the  whole  controversy,  fixed  at  #500,  and  which, 
considering  the  extreme  perplexity  and  difficulty  of  the  subject,  and  the 
very  large  amount  of  time  and  labor  devoted  to  the  investigation  of  the 


232 


Rep.  No.  669. 


matter,  was  regarded  as  a  moderate  charge,  were  also  paid  by  the  claim- 
ants, as  hereinafter  mentioned. 

The  agreed  value  of  the  goods,  including  duties,  (#27,300,)  was  consid- 
erably less  than  the  valuation  made  at  the  time  of  the  seizures,  in  May, 
1838,  by  the  Government  appraisers,  who  estimated  all  the  goods,  dutiable 
and  free,  at  195,759.45  francs;  but,  independently  of  these  appraisements 
including  a  large  amount  of  free  goods,  for  the  condemnation  of  which  there 
"was  little  hope,  it  was  understood  that,  from  changes  in  fashion  and  other 
causes,  many  of  the  articles  had  very  considerably  fallen  in  value  during 
the  long  time  which  had  elapsed  between  the  seizures  and  the  filing  of  the 
informations. 

It  should  be  mentioned  that,  against  5  cases  included  in  the  seizures,  I 
was  not  able  to  discover  any  possible  ground  of  forfeiture;  and  that  no  in- 
formation was  filed  against  them;  but,  on  the  consummation  of  the  settle- 
ment, they  were  restored  by  the  collector,  as  a  part  of  the  arrangement,  to» 
the  importers. 

2.  The  suits  on  the  penal  bonds  were  discontinued  on  the  payment  to 
me,  by  Lachaise  &  Fouche,  of  $18,968  37:  which  sum  I  received  on  the 
27th  of  May,  1839,  and  the  particulars  of  which  are  as  follows  : 
Costs  of  William  M.  Price,  charged  by  his  account  to  the 

United  States       -  .  -  -  -  -  $S4  00 

Costs  of  B.  F.  Butler  -----  29  44 

Counsel  fees  of  Y\  F.  Butler  in  the  seizure  cases,  and  in  the 

whole  controversy,  as  above  mentioned  -  -  -  500  00* 

Balance  for  estimated  amount  of  claims       -  18,354  93- 


1S,968  37 


No  suit  had  been  brought  for  unpaid  duties,  and  no  probable  ground  of 
recovering  in  any  such  suit  could  be  discovered,  although,  from  the  course 
of  dealing  of  these  importers,  there  was  very  good  reason  to  suspect  that 
goods  had  been,  in  the  course  of  their  business,  frequently  entered  by  them 
at  a  fraudulent  undervaluation. 

Under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  looking  to  the  nature  of  the 
proofs,  to  the  probable  deterioration  of  the  goods,  even  in  the  event  of  the 
condemnation  of  all  of  them,  and  to  the  contingencies  of  the  insolvency  of 
the  parties  in  the  personal  actions  on  the  penal  bonds,  and  other  hazards, 
I  deemed  it  not  only  exceedingly  beneficial  to  the  interests  of  the  United 
States  to  dispose  of  the  subject  on  these  terms,  but  as  accomplishing,  so  far 
as  could  be  expected,  all  the  ends  of  punitive  justice ;  and  with  that  view, 
on  my  own  motion,  though  after  a  consultation  with  the  district  judge,  I 
also  entered  nolle prosequis  on  certain  criminal  prosecutions  which  had  been 
instituted  against  Lachaise,  one  of  the  importers,  and  which  grew  out  or 
the  same  transactions  which  gave  rise  to  the  above  proceedings. 

The  sum  of  $1S,354  93  was  paid  by  me,  on  the  day  of  its  receipt,  to  the 
collector,  and  an  informal  receipt  then  given  to  me  by  him  therefor.  Formal 
triplicate  receipts  were  afterwards  to  be  furnished  to  me;  but  the  occupa- 
tions in  which  I  have  been  since  engaged  having  prevented  me  from  pre- 
paring a  formal  report  of  the  dispositions  of  these  cases,  it  is  only  now  that 
I  have  obtained  them.    I  have  the  honor  herewith  to  enclose  one  of  them. 

On  the  17th  of  June,  1S39,  I  deposited  in  the  Manhattan  Bank,  to  the 
credit  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  the  $S4  received  for  the  costs 


Rep.  No.  669. 


233 


of  William  M.  Price,  above  mentioned,  one  of  the  receipts  for  which  is  also 
herewith  enclosed. 


Mi 
iai* 
at 

here 


I? 


I  am,  sir.  &c. 


Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


B.  F.  BUTLER, 
United  States  Attorney. 


M. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  April  26,  1838. 
'    Sirs  :  The  undersigned  demands  that  you  produce,  and  deposite  at  the 
public  store,  No.  17  Nassau  street,  without  delay,  the  goods  referred  to  in 
your  several  entries  of  importation,  by  the  ships  Utica,  Charlemagne,  Ville 
de  Lyons,  and  Rhone,  to  the  end  that  they  may  be  examined. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 


New  York,  April  26,  1838. 

Dear  Sir  :  A  number  of  cases  of  valuable  goods  were  yesterday  morn- 
ing forcibly  taken  from  our  store  by  persons  claiming  to  act  under  your  di- 
rections, but  who,  upon  being  applied  to  for  the  purpose,  declined  exhibit- 
ing any  papers  or  authority  whatever  to  justify  so  extraordinary  a  proce- 
dure. We  beg  leave  respectfully  to  request  that  you  will  communicate  to 
us  the  grounds  which  induced  you  (if  the  fact  be  so)  to  authorize  or  sanc- 
tion this  act. 

We  remain,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

DE  CASSE,  MIEGE,  &  CO. 

J.  Hott,  Esq. 


New  York,  April  27,  1838. 

Sir  :  In  answer  to  your  note  of  the  26th  instant,  we  beg  leave  to  state 
that  the  goods  imported  by  us  in  the  Ville  de  Lyons  are,  or  ought  to  be,, 
still  on  board  that  vessel,  no  entry  thereof  having  been  made. 

Those  in  the  Rhone  and  Utica  have  been  already  examined,  and  passed 
by  the  custom-house.  The  packages  by  the  Charlemagne,  ordered  to  be 
sent  to  the  public  store,  are  now  there  for  examination,  as  directed  by  your 
department. 

The  residue  of  this  importation,  having  been  sent  to  our  store,  were,  as 
usual,  we  believe,  in  all  similar  cases,  opened,  and  a  portion  of  the  cases 
sold  and  delivered  in  the  ordinary  course  of  business. 

Whilst  it  is  not,  therefore,  in  our  power  to  comply  with  your  demand  in 
reference  to  these  goods,  it  will  give  us  great  pleasure  to  produce  the  in- 
voice thereof,  if  you  desire  it,  and  to  give  any  explanation  or  information 
in  our  power,  in  order  to  satisfy  you  that  the  cases  sold  correspond  there- 
with. The  other  cases,  not  sold,  were  opened,  and  it  would  put  us  to  great 
inconvenience  to  send  them  to  the  public  store.    We  therefore  respectfully 


234 


Rep.  No.  669. 


beg  to  know  whether  it  would  not  suit  your  convenience  to  permit  any  of 
your  officers  to  examine  them  in  our  store  with  the  invoice,  or  in  any  other 
manner  that  may  be  deemed  necessary. 

Very  respectfullv,  your  obedient  servants, 

DE  CASSE,  MIEGE,  &  CO. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 

[Received  May  3,  1S38,  at  1  P.  M. — J.  H.] 


New  York,  April  30,  1838. 
Sir  :  We  beg  leave  to  communicate  a  statement  of  the  goods  forcibly 
removed  from  our  store,  by  your  directions,  as  stated  in  our  letter  of  the 
26th  instant,  together  with  the  names  of  the  vessels  in  which  they  were 
imported,  and  the  date  of  their  respective  entry,  viz : 


r  676 

B  D 

C 

553 

M 

94 

u 

458 

•  a 

569 

a 

568  « 

1  if 

569 

1  a 

569 

a 

570 

it 

569  - 

•  u 

570 

'  a 

570 

'  a 

571 

a 

570  - 

i  « 

571 

i  « 

571 

a 

572 

u 

571  5 

1  a 

572 

a 

572 

a 

560 

u 

169 

u 

5S9 

u 

597 

Do. 


Do. 


Do. 


Burgundy,  March  26,  '38, 


do. 


do. 


All  the  above  goods  are  duty  free,  and  have  regularly  passed  the  custom- 
house long  since,  as  you  will  perceive  by  the  dates  of  the  entries,  except 
the  last  item. 

This  case,        689,  (countermarked  under  the  wrapper  597,)  received, 

per  Charlemagne,  on  the  17th  of  April  last,  and  containing  4,0S0  pieces 
galloons,  was,  on  the  entry,  ordered  to  the  public  store,  and  there  sent ;  but, 
on  the  opening  of  many  of  the  cases  at  our  store,  these  same  galloons  were 

found  under  the  mark        691,  which  ought  to  have  contained  18  pieces 

gros  de  Naples,  which  have  not  been  received,  a  case  of  suspenders  having 


been  substituted  for  it,  through  mistake,  under  the  number 


0 


690;  and 


the  30  pieces  gingus  bastiste,  which  ought  to  be  in  this  last  case,  are  be- 
lieved to  be  in  the  case         689,  now  at  the  public  store.    We  beg  leave 

to  observe  that         689  and  690  are  on  a  dutiable  entry  and  order  to  be 

reported  upon  ;  which  circumstance  clearly  shows  a  mistake,  and  ought  to 
forbid  all  suspicions  of  intentional  error. 


Rep.  No.  669.  235 

We  respectfully  request  that  you  will  return  to  us  the  goods  above  enu- 
merated without  delay. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

DE  CASSE,  MIEGE,  &  CO. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 

[Received  May  3,  183S,  at  1  P.  M. — J.  Hoyt.] 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  4,  1838. 
Sirs  :  Your  several  communications  of  the  26th,  27th,  and  30th  of  April, 
were  handed  to  me  at  one  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  and,  in  consequence  of 
a  severe  indisposition  of  a  member  of  my  family,  I  have  not  had  the  op- 
portunity to  lay  them  before  the  district  attorney,  for  his  advice  thereon. 

The  packages  were  taken  from  your  store  by  my  order,  as  collector  of 
the  port,  for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  further  examination  of  the  property,  in 
order  to  be  able  to  decide  whether  they  had  been  entered  at  the  custom- 
house in  an  improper  manner,  either  by  accident  or  design.  The  officers 
who  took  the  goods  have  done  nothing  more  than  I  directed  them  to  do, 
and  I  am  responsible  for  the  acts  done.  I  state  it  was  my  design  to  have 
the  goods  examined.  I  had  asked  one  of  your  house  for  a  particular  in- 
voice, and  it  was  promised  me ;  I  sent  for  it,  and  it  was  not  produced ; 
which  certainly  did  tend,  as  well  it  might,  to  excite  suspicions,  when  taken 
in  connexion  with  statements  that  had  been  made  to  me,  concerning  the 
manner  in  which  you  had  transacted  business  at  the  department.  God 
forbid  that  I  should  do  you  an  act  of  injustice ;  but  I  owe  a  duty  to  the 
fair  merchants,  as  well  as  to  the  Government,  which  I  intend  to  perform  at 
all  hazards.  I  am  in  that  situation  where  protection  is  due  from  me  to 
both  parties ;  and  that  protection  shall  be  extended  fairly  and  liberally, 
with  reference  to  the  just  rights  of  both. 

You  must  be  aware  that  we  cannot  examine  the  goods  till  the  invoices 
are  produced ;  and,  as  soon  as  they  are  produced,  the  examination  shall  be 
had  forthwith,  and  a  right  judgment  pronounced  upon  the  matter. 

I  desire  all  frankness  on  your  part,  and  it  shall  not  be  wanting  in  me ; 
but  I  will  add,  if  I  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  law  has  been  violated 
by  design,  I  have  but  one  course  to  adopt ;  and  that  course  is,  to  take  all 
means  in  my  power  to  redress  the  wrong  done. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  New  York. 


New  York,  May  5,  1838. 

Sir  :  We  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  communi- 
cation of  yesterday,  and  regret  to  perceive  that  you  insist  upon  withhold- 
ing the  property  forcibly,  and  as  we  conceive  illegally,  taken  from  our 
store,  by.  persons  acting  under  your  directions. 

We  cannot  believe  that  the  merchants  of  New  York,  after  having  their 
goods  examined  and  regularly  passed  through  the  custom-house,  and  after 
having  paid,  or  secured  to  be  paid,  the  duties  thereon,  can  be  subject  to  the 
extraordinary  vexation  and  injury  that  we  have  experienced  in  the  present 


336 


Rep.  No.  669. 


instance,  without  having  the  means  of  adequate  redress.  We  therefore 
hold  you  personally  liable  for  the  property  of  which  we  were  forcibly  dis- 
possessed, and  for  all  damages  resulting  therefrom. 

At  the  same  time,  (but  Avithout  waiving  our  rights  as  against  you,)  we 
desire  to  make  every  effort  to  avoid  a  controversy.  We  notice  your  offer 
to  examine  the  goods  taken  from  our  store  as  soon  as  the  invoices  are  pro- 
duced. While  we  deny  your  right  to  detain  this  property,  subject  to  any 
conditions  whatever,  yet,  in  order  to  avoid  a  lawsuit,  if  possible,  we  are 
willing,  as  far  as  practicable,  to  comply  with  your  demand. 

The  invoice  of  the  case  by  the  Rhone  (which  was  imported  nearly  two 
years  ago)  is  not  in  our  possession ;  we  believe  it  to  be  in  the  custom- 
house. If,  however,  after  so  great  a  lapse  of  time,  it  should  not  be  found 
on  file  in  your  department,  we  then  refer  you  to  the  entry  of  the  goods, 
which  contains  the  particulars  of  the  invoice. 

The  invoice  of  the  goods  by  the  Burgundy  was  left  by  us  in  the  custom- 
house, and  is,  or  ought  to  be,  still  there. 

We  enclose  the  invoices  by  the  Utica  and  Charlemagne.*  We  have  al- 
ready explained,  in  our  letter  of  the  30th  ultimo,  an  error  in  relation  to  the 
cases  by  the  latter  vessel,  ordered  to  the  public  store,  and  are  ready  to  give 
any  further  explanations  that  you  may  require. 

We  know  nothing  of  the  statements  you  refer  to  as  having  been  made 
to  you,  concerning  the  manner  in  which  we  have  transacted  business  in 
your  department ;  but  if  any  charges  or  insinuations  have  been  made  af- 
fecting our  good  name,  we  claim,  as  an  act  of  ordinary  justice,  that  the 
names  of  our  accusers  and  the  nature  of  the  charges  should  be  communi- 
cated to  us,  in  order  that  we  may  have  the  opportunity  to  prove  them  (as 
we  unqualifiedly  assert  them  to  be)  unfounded  and  base  calumnies. 

We  desire,  equally  with  yourself,  that  there  should  be  perfect  frankness 
on  both  sides  ;  yet  we  cannot  avoid  the  remark,  that,  up  to  this  period,  not- 
withstanding all  our  applications  to  be  informed  of  the  grounds  of  the  sus- 
picions apparently  entertained  by  you,  all  information  has  been  carefully 
withheld.  Our  Mr.  De  Casse  waited  personally  upon  you,  and  offered  to 
answer  any  questions  you  desired  to  propose,  and* give  any  information 
you  might  desire.  He  personally  offered  to  explain  the  reasons  why  the 
particular  invoice  you  refer  to  had  not  been  handed  to  you,  and,  at  the 
same  time,  exhibited  the  invoice,  and  offered  to  deliver  it  to  you.  To  our 
great  surprise,  you  declined  receiving  it.  or  to  hold  any  conversation  with 
him,  insisting  that  every  thing  should  be  communicated  in  writing. 
Very  respectfully,  &c. 

DE  CASSE,  MIEGE,  &  CO. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 

[Received  May  8,  1838.] 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  9,  1838. 
Gentlemen  :  Your  favor  of  the  5th  came  to  me  at  a  late  business  hour 
yesterday.    I  will  not  stop  to  correct  the  erroneous  impressions  you  seem 


•  A9  the  goods  had  been  regularly  passed  by  the  custom-house,  and  delivered  to  us,  we,  of  course, 
proceeded  to  make  sales  as  usual,  and,  consequently,  it  will  be  found  that  some  portion  of  the 
goods  originally  contained  in  thesa  cases  are  no  longer  there.  D.,  M.,  &  CO. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


to  be  under,  but  will  content  myself  by  referring  to  my  note  of  the  26th 
April  last,  where  I  require  you  to  produce  the  goods  referred  to  in  your 
late  entries  by  the  Utica,  Charlemagne,  Ville  de  Lyons,  and  Rhone  ;  and, 
of  course,  you  were  to  understand  that  we  wanted  the  invoices  also.  In 
my  communication  of  the  4th  instant,  I  stated  that  the  goods  should  be  ex- 
amined as  soon  as  the  invoices  were  produced.  Your  note  of  the  5th  cov- 
ered invoices  by  the  Utica  in  the  voyage  of  1837,  the  packages  in  which 
were  numbered  from  66  to  143  ;  and,  also,  the  invoices  by  the  Charlemagne, 
of  March  3d,  1835,  in  which  packages  were  numbered  from  655  to  695. 
The  invoice  by  the  Utica,  referred  to  in  the  entries  sworn  to  on  the  4th  and 
10th  of  April,  is  not  yet  before  me ;  but  as  soon  as  produced  I  will  cause 
the  examination  to  be  made.*  The  invoices  by  the  Rhone,  the  Burgundy, 
Sully,  and  Poland,  or  at  least  one  by  each  of  these  vessels,  I  have. 

The  personal  explanation  referred  to  by  you  was  after  the  affair  had  as- 
sumed such  a  shape  as  it  was  thought  best,  by  your  counsel  as  well  as  my- 
self, that  every  thing  should  be  put  in  writing  as  between  us.  I  again 
repeat  that,  as  soon  as  the  invoices  are  produced,  the  examination  shall  be 
had.  The  packages  sent  to  the  appraisers'  store  from  the  Charlemagne  not 
having  been  passed  or  reported  upon,  you  had  no  right,  in  any  sense,  to 
sell  the  remaining  goods,  or  even  open  the  packages,  or  take  off  the  marks 
by  which  they  were  entered. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege  &  Co.,  New  Fork. 


New  York,  May  10,  1838. 
Sir  :  The  invoices  referred  to  in  your  note  dated  yesterday,  and  which 
you  express  a  wish  to  have,  are  not  in  our  possession,  but,  to  the  best  of 
our  belief,  were  left  by  us  with  the  custom-house,  and  are,  or  ought  to  be? 
still  there. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

DE  CASSE,  MIEGE,  &  CO. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  tyc. 

[Received  May  10th. — J.  H.] 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  11,  1838. 

Gentlemen  :  I  have  your  letter  of  yesterday,  and  immediately  on  its 
receipt  I  caused  an  examination  to  be  made  in  this  office  for  the  invoice 
referred  to,  but  it  cannot  be  found,  and  the  clerks  who  have  charge  of  that 
branch  of  the  business  do  not  believe  it  was  ever  left  in  the  office. 

If  you  have  a  copy,  I  will  permit  the  examination  of  the  goods  to  be 
made  from  a  certified  copy  from  your  invoice  book.  I  would  thank  you, 
for  an  early  reply. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 


238 


Rep.  No.  669. 


New  York,  May  12,  1S38. 
Yours  dated  11th  instant  is  at  hand.  The  case  of  goods,  per  Utica, 
forcibly  removed  from  our  store,  by  your  orders,  was  imported  in  August, 
1837,  and  you  admit  receipt  of  invoice  therefor,  as  well  as  invoices  for 
the  other  cases  forcibly  carried  away,  imported  in  ships  Rhone,  Burgundy, 
and  Charlemagne. 

What  have  the  invoices  by  the  Utica,  referred  to  in  the  entries  of  4th  and 
10th  April  last,  to  do  with  the  goods  forcibly  taken  from  us  ? 

As  to  the  invoices,  which  you  allege  are  not  in  the  custom-house,  we 
can  only  repeat  they  were  left  there.  The  entries,  however,  contain  the 
particulars  thereof,  and  we  refer  you  to  them. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

DE  CASSE,  MIEGE,  &  CO. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 

[Received  12th  May,  1838,  i  to  11  A.  M.—J.  H.] 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  12,  1838. 
Gentlemen:  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  communication  of  this  morning.  I 
will  have  the  goods  now  in  public  store  examined  at  any  time  you  will 
name  ;  and,  if  more  agreeable  to  yourselves,  we  have  no  objection  to  your 
being  present. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 


Mat  12,  1838. 

Dear  Sir:  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  believe  that  the  goods  re- 
ferred to  in  your  note  of  this  morning  correspond  with  the  invoices,  with 
the  exception  they  have  already  mentioned,  and  therefore  do  not  think  it 
necessary  to  be  present  at  the  examination  thereof.  If  necessary,  they 
will,  if  required,  explain  any  thing  which  may  appear  to  be  requisite. 

Respectfully, 

F.  B.  CUTTING. 

Jesse  Hott,  Esq.,  Collector,  $c. 


Appraisers'  Office,  New  York,  May  16,  1838. 
The  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York  having,  on  the  26th  April  last, 
taken  from  the  store  of  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  a  certain  quantity 
of  goods,  for  the  purpose  of  examining  and  determining  whether  the  owners, 
agents,  or  consignees  of  said  goods  had  paid  or  secured,  or  caused  to  be 
paid  or  secured,  the  duties  imposed  thereon  by  law ;  and  the  said  collector 
having  requested  the  undersigned,  appraisers  of  the  port  of  New  York,  to 
examine  and  appraise  said  goods,  you  are  therefore  required,  in  pursu- 
ance of  the  statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  to  appear  before  us, 
at  our  office,  number  17  Nassau  street,  on  Thursday,  the  17th  day  of  May 


Rep.  No.  669. 


239 


instant,  at  ten  o'clock,  A.  M.,  to  the  end  that  you  may  be  examined,  under 
oath,  touching  any  and  all  matters  or  things  relating  to  said  goods  ;  and  you 
are  also  hereby  required  to  produce,  on  oath,  to  the  collector  of  the  port  of 
New  York,  all  letters,  accounts,  and  invoices,  relating  to  said  goods. 

A.  B.  MEAD. 

A.  B.  VANDERPOOL. 

JEROMUS  JOHNSON. 

Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  18,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  herewith  hand  you  an  invoice  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  with 
the  entry  of  that  house,  and  also  a  permit  for  certain  goods  imported  by 
them  in  the  ship  Charlemagne.  It  is  very  apparent  that  the  invoice  and 
permit  have  been  altered  in  a  manner  that  amounts  to  forgery  at  common 
law,  and  punishable  under  the  act  of  Congress. 

It  is  supposed  that  Mr.  De  Casse  is  the  individual  who  perpetrated  the 
crime.    I  wish  you  to  take  all  legal  measures  to  bring  him  to  justice. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HO^VT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney.  « 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  18,  1838. 
Sir  :  You  are  authorized  to  suspend  the  criminal  proceedings  against 
De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  till  9  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  19,  1838. 
Gentlemen  :  On  the  26th  of  April  last,  I  required  you  to  produce, 
among  other  goods,  and  deposite  in  the  public  store,  number  17  Nassau 
street,  all  those  imported  by  you  in  the  ship  Charlemagne,  on  her  Jast 
voyage. 

This  requisition  not  having  been  complied  with,  I  again  order  that  said 
goods  be  forthwith  produced  and  deposited  at  that  place. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 


Custom-IIouse,  New  York,  May  19,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  believe  that  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  are  indebted  to  the 
United  States  in  a  very  large  sum,  for  duties  unpaid  and  unsecured  by  bond* 


240 


Rep.  No.  669. 


I  wish  you  forthwith  to  issue  a  writ  against  them,  and  hold  them  to  bail 
in  the  sum  of  $50,000.  The  names  of  the  firm  are  Louis  De  Casse,  Pierre 
A.  Miege,  and  Jean  Francis  Miege.  The  time  has  elapsed  in  which  you  are 
authorized  to  suspend  proceedings  against  Mr.  De  Casse ;  you  will  there- 
fore proceed  to  make  out  all  the  papers. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq.. 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


[private.] 

Custom-House,  New  York,  June  4,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  have  been  waiting  several  days,  to  see  whether  any  arrangement 
was  likely  to  be  made  with  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  the  owners  of 
the  three  packages  of  goods  seized  in  your  place  by  the  marshal,  under  my 
directions. 

The  case  stands  substantially  thus.  We  have  discovered  that  the  busi- 
ness of  the  custom-house  has  been  very  irregular  and  fraudulent  for  a  long 
while,  but  under  such  circumstances  as  renders  it  very  difficult  to  prove  it 
in  a  court  of  justice.    Their  goods  have  been  entered  for  years  under  the 

mark        on  the  outside  wrapper;  but  the  case,  as  it  turns  oat,  under  the 

wrapper,  had  a  different  mark;  and,  as  soon  as  the  goods  were  in  their  pos- 
session, the  wrapper  was  taken  off  and  disposed  of  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
destroy  all  power  of  identifying  any  particular  case  with  the  entry.  In 
1S36,  1837,  and  1838,  they  have  imported  about  2,100  packages  under  the 

mark^y^  on  which  they  have  only  paid  about  $24,000  duties;  and  I 

have  no  doubt  they  owe  the  Government  more  than  $  100,000  on  the  im- 
portation, wholly  insecured,  and  to  that  effect  I  have  made  affidavits,  for 
the  purpose  of  holding  them  to  bail.  I  have  had  Mr.  De  Casse  under  ex- 
amination ;  he  no  doubt  swore  falsely,  which  makes  a  forfeiture  of  the 
goods;  and  I  also  ascertained  that  his  permit  had  been  altered,  and  also  the 
figures  in  the  invoice,  designating  the  packages  to  be  sent  to  the  appraisers' 
store  for  examination,  which,  in  my  judgment,  constituted  forgery  ;  and  for 
that  offence  criminal  process  has  been  taken  out  against  him  more  than 
two  weeks  since,  but  he  has  not  yet  been  arrested.  Overtures  have  been 
made  for  a  compromise  of  the  civil  branch  of  the  subject,  but  it  cannot 
probably  be  done.  The  guilt  is  unquestionable,  but  the  proof  is  not  easily 
obtained. 

I  do  not  see,  I  confess,  how  I  am  to  identify  the  goods. 

I  could  not  make  the  party,  when  under  examination,  say  by  wlmt  ves- 
sel they  were  imported.  He  admitted  the  three  cases  were  imported  by 
his  house  into  this  port ;  and  the  question  occurs  to  me,  whether — 1st,  the 

admission  ;  2d,  the  proof  that  all  his  entries  were  under  the  mark  of^/x  ; 

3d,  that  the  cases  do  not  bear  that  mark — are  not  enough  to  throw  on  the 
claimants  the  onus  of  proving  that  duties  had  been  paid.  If  this  is  enough, 


Rep.  No.  669.  241 

then  I  think  the  goods  can  be  condemned.  Will  you  let  me  know  your 
views  upon  the  subject. 

Yours.  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

J.  M.  Read,  U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  5,  1S38. 

Sir  :  In  the  suits  you  have  commenced  on  the  penal  bonds  of  Messrs. 
Lachaise  &  Fouche  and  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  I  rely  for  the 
right  of  recovery  on  the  fact,  which  I  think  can  be  proved,  that  in  all  the 
cases  the  "  packages  were  opened  without  the  consent  of  the  collector  or 
-surveyor,  given  in  writing,"  &c.  (See  4th  section  of  act  of  1S2S,  proviso.) 
In  the  case  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.'s  bond  for  the  entry  by  the  Charle- 
magne, the  facts  are  thus  : 

The  entry  was  sworn  to  about  the  23d  day  of  April,  and  the  permit 
bears  date  that  day  ;  I  believe  it  is  in  your  possession.  The  packages 
were  regularly  described  on  the  invoice,  to  be  sent  to  the  appraisers'  store 
for  examination. 

The  figures  were  altered  on  the  permit  and  invoice,  and  hence  all  the 
packages  designated  did  not  go  to  the  public  store,  by  reason  of  the  fraud. 

On  the  26th  of  April,  I  demanded  that  all  the  goods  in  the  entry  should 
be  sent  to  the  public  store,  after  an  examination  of  the  goods  that  were 
sent  had  been  made  by  the  appraisers,  and  within  ten  days  I  reiterated  the 
demand.  On  the  examination  of  Mr.  De  Casse,  on  the  17th  May,  under 
the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  1832,  he  admitted  the  goods  by  the  Charle- 
magne had  been  opened,  &c;  and,  under  these  circumstances,  it  appears  to 
me  the  recovery  must  be  had  upon  the  bond. 

Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

War.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


N. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  August  29,  1840. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  25th,  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  one  from  the  At- 
torney General  to  you,  under  date  of  the  24th  instant,  found  me,  two  days 
since,  too  unwell  to  admit  of  an  earlier  reply.  They  relate  to  the  subject  of 
another  official  bond  from  me.  To  a  right  understanding  of  the  letter  of 
the  Attorney  General,  it  is  necessary  to  advert  to  the  following  facts : 

1st.  On  the  10th  of  July  last  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  issued 
a  circular,  one  of  which  was  addressed  to  me,  which  stated,  among  other 
things,  as  follows  : 

"  I  am  directed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  transmit  to  you  the 
enclosed  bond,  required  by  him  under  the  Sth  section  of  the  act  of  4th  July, 
1840,  to  provide  for  the  collection,  safe  keeping,  transfer,  and  disbursement 
of  the  public  revenue. " 


Rep.  No.  669. 


2d.  The  condition  of  the  hond  referred  to  recites  that  the  said  Jesse  Hoyt 
hath  been  appointed  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York,  by  a  commission 
bearing  date  the  2d  day  of  February,  1S38;  and  the  condition  then  goes  on 
to  say,  "if  the  said  Jesse  Hoyt  has  truly  and  faithfully  executed  and  dis- 
charged, and  shall  truly  and  faithfully  continue  to  execute  and  discharge, 
all  the  duties  of  said  office,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States  ;  and,  [ 
moreover,  has  well,  truly,  and  faithfully  kept,  and  shall  well,  truly,  and 
faithfully  keep  safely,  without  loaning  or  using,  all  the  public  money  col-  j 
lected  by  him,  or  otherwise  at  any  time  placed  in  his  possession  and  custody, 
till  the  same  has  been  or  shall  be  ordered  by  the  proper  department  or  i 
officer  of  the  Government  to  be  transferred  or  paid  out,  and,  when  such 
orders  for  transfer  or  payment  have  beet)  or  shall  be  received,  has  faith-  I 
fully  and  promptly  made,  and  shall  faithfully  and  promptly  make  the  same, 
as  directed ;  and  has  done  and  shall  do  and  perform  all  other  duties,  as  fiscal  i 
agent  of  the  Government,  which  have  been  or  may  be  imposed  by  any  act  1 
of  Congress,  or  by  any  regulation  of  the  Treasury  Department,  made  in  I 
conformity  to  law  ;  and  also  has  done  and  performed,  and  shall  do  and  1 
perform,  all  acts  and  duties  required  by  law,  or  by  direction  of  any  of  the 
Executive  departments  of  the  Government,  as  agent  for  paying  pensions, 
or  for  making  any  other  disbursements  which  either  of  the  heads  of  those  I 
departments  may  be  required  by  law  to  make,  and  which  are  of  a  charac- 
ter to  be  made  by  a  depositary,  constituted  by  an  act  of  Congress  entitled 
"An  act  to  provide  f <r  the  collection,  safe  keeping,  transfer,  and  disburse- 
ment of  the  public  revenue/'  approved  July  4,  1840,  consistently  with  the 
other  official  duties  imposed  upon  him,  then  this  obligation  to  be  void  and 
of  none  effect;  otherwise  it  shall  abide  and  remain  in  full  force  and  virtue." 

3d.  I  objected  to  the  execution  of  the  bond,  because  the  8th  section  of  | 
the  act  referred  to  did  not  refer  to  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York. 

4th.  These  objections  were  referred  to  the  Attorney  General;  and  on 
the  31st  July  this  officer  reports  that,  in  his  "opinion,  the  instructions  are 
correct,"  whether  as  a  matter  of  State  policy  or  in  legal  contemplation  j 
does  not  appear. 

5th.  My  understanding,  in  the  absence  of  my  reasons  for  that  opinion, 
not  beng  satisfied,  I  submitted  to  you  an  argument  on  the  question,  with 
a  request,  that  it  might  be  laid  before  the  Attorney  General,  for  his  con- 
sideration, not  doubting,  any  more  than  did  a  gentleman  of  great  legal 
attainments,  that  the  Attorney  General  would  see  the  necessity  of  chang- 
ing his  opinion. 

6th.  You  complied  with  my  request  with  great  promptness,  in  a  spirit  of 
liberality,  which  merits,  as  it  receives,  my  thanks,  and  which  produced  the 
letter  of  the  24th  instant,  from  the  officer,  which  I  have  before  referred  to ; 
in  which  letter  he  says  : 

"  On  one  suggestion  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  say  a 
word.  He  observes  that  he  is  already  under  bond  for  $200,000,  and  that 
to  require  him  «o  give  a  new  bond  in  the  sum  of  $200,000  is  somewhat 
oppressive — evidently  understanding  that  the  new  bond  is  in  addition  to 
the  former.  I  am  of  opinion  that  such  an  additional  bond  is  not  re- 
quired by  the  act  of  4th  July,  1S40,  but  meiely  a  new  bond,  which 
shall  embrace  the  new  duties  and  responsibilities  that  may  be  devolved  on 
the  collector,  as  well  as  those  previously  required  of  him,  and  the  amount 
of  which  need  not  exceed  his  present  security,  if  that  sum  is  such  as  seems 
reasonable  and  safe  to  the  proper  officers  of  the  Department." 


Rep.  No.  669. 


243 


It  will  be  observed  that  it  is  here  unequivocally  admitted  by  the  Attor- 
.  ney  General  that  no  bond  is  required  by  the  act  of  4th  July,  1840. 

It  is  under  this  tct  that  the  requirement  for  the  bond  was  made,  and  on 
that  ground  I  resisted  the  request  and  submitted  the  argument ;  and  I  am 
happy  to  find  myself  sustained  by  this  high  officer  in  the  unequivocal  lan- 
guage I  have  just  quoted. 

This  ought  no  doubt  to  settle  the  question  ;  but  it  may  not  be  amiss  to 
add  some  other  considerations. 

It  is  said  this  is  to  be  "  merely  a  new  bond,  to  embrace  new  duties  and 
responsibilities. "  If  new  duties  and  responsibilities  are  thrown  upon  the 
collectors  of  ports  where  receivers  general  are  stationed,  public  expectation 
will  not  be  answered  in  relation  to  the  great  advantages  contemplated  by  the 
passage  of  the  Sub-Treasury  bill.  I  had  supposed  the  bonds  of  the  receivers 
general  were  to  lighten  those  of  the  collectors,  and  so  the  public  understand  it. 
You  do  not  propose  to  surrender  up  the  whole  bond,  nor  would  it  be  proper 
to  do  so:  and  without  this  it  is  an  additional  bond,  and  not  "  merely  a  new 
bond."  It  is  a  substantive  affirmative  new  obligation,  in  every  sense  of 
the  word;  and,  moreover,  the  condition  of  the  bond  is  broader  than  any 
law  applicable  to  any  branch  of  the  Treasury  Department.  It  applies  to 
all  deposites  of  the  Government.  The  condition  says:  "And  has  also 
done  and  performer1,  and  shall  do  and  perform,  all  acts  and  duties  required 
by  law,  or  by  direction  of  any  of  the  Executive  departments  of  the  Govern- 
ment, as  agent  for  paying  pensions,  or  for  making  any  other  disbursements 
I  which  either  of  the  heads  of  these  departments  may  be  required  to  make, 
and  which  are  of  a  character  to  be  made  by  a  depositary"  under  the  act 
of  4th  of  July,  1S40. 

As  I  decline  accepting  the  office  of  "  agent  for  paying  pensions,  or  any 
other  office  under  any  of  the  Executive  departments  of  the  Government," 
except  the  Treasury,  it  is  quite  out  of  order  to  call  on  me  to  give  a  bond 
for  the  performance  of  the  duties  of  any  such  office. 

I  declined  acting  as  agent  for  the. Patent  Office ;  and  you  decided  it  was 
optional  with  me  or  not  to  perform  the  duties,  as  these  duties  were  not 
devolved  by  law  upon  collectors. 

I  have  a  right  to  decline  to  perform  any  other  duties  not  falling  within 
the  scope  of  the  duties  imposed  by  law  on  collectors ;  and,  by  the  same 
rule,  1  have  a  right  to  decline  giving  a  bond  lor  any  thing  else  than  the 
performance  of  the  appropriate  duties  of  collector.  The  20th  section  of 
the  act  of  2d  of  March,  1799,  prescribes  the  form  of  the  bonds  to  be  given 
by  collectors,  and  that  form  has  not  been  changed  by  any  subsequent  law. 

I  do  not  know  whose  legal  acumen  I  may  assail  by  the  remark,  but  to 
me  it  is  wholly  inconceivable  that  any  gentleman  who  has  sufficient  char- 
acter to  be  entitled  to  be  connected  with  the  Treasury  Department  should 
have  drawn  such  a  condition  to  a  collector's  bond ;  but,  whoever  it  was, 
he  can  have  but  very  imperfect  notions  of  the  legal  rights  of  the  Govern- 
ment or  its  subordinate  officers.  It  is  no  doubt  a  proper  bond  for  a 
receiver  general,  or  for  a  depositary  under  the  act  of  July  :  but  the  law 
makes  a  difference  between  collectors  and  receivers,  and  the  just  expecta- 
tions of  the  people  will  be  disappointed  if  they  are  confounded.  The  con- 
dition of  the  bond  in  other  respects  is  unskilfully  drawn  ;  for  I  need  not 
inform  any  gentleman  entitled  to  the  appellation  of  a  lawyer,  that  the  part 
of  the  condition  which  undertakes  to  stipulate  that  the  said  "  Jesse  Hoyt 
has  truly  and  faithfully  executed,"  &c,  is  not  obligatory  on  the  sureties 


244 


Sep.  No.  669. 


as  to  any  collections,  &c.,  made  previous  to  the  execution  of  the  bond ;  nor 
need  such  gentlemen  be  informed  that  a  reference  to  the  act  of  the  4th  of 
July,  in  the  condition,  is  a  reality  for  the  reason  that  th#  bond  purports  to 
be  a  statutory  bond ;  and  there  is  no  authority  in  the  act  referred  to  to  de- 
mand the  execution  of  the  bond  in  question. 

It  being  admitted  that  the  act  of  the  4th  July  does  not  call  for  a  new 
bond,  it  would  seem  to  be  unnecessary  to  ask  for  it,  because  it  does  not 
add  an  iota  to  the  security  of  the  Government. 

But  the  Attorney  General  suggests  that  the  new  bond,  when  given,  need 
not  exceed  the  present  security,  if  the  Department  should  deem  it  reasonable 
and  safe.  There  are  two  views  to  be  taken  of  this  question.  I  acted  as  col- 
lector and  sub-treasurer  for  over  two  years,  during  which  time  I  collected, 
paid  over,  and  disbursed  near  $30,000,000,  having  in  hand  an  average 
sum  of  about  $350,000,  and  the  official  bonds  were  $200,000.  Under  the 
present  system  I  pay  over  to  the  receiver  all  the  collections  twice  a  week, 
who  also  gives  bond  for  the  like  sum  of  $200,000.  One  of  two  conclu- 
sions, under  this  state  of  facts,  is  unavoidable  : 

1.  That  the  Department  were  negligent  in  keeping  my  bonds  so  small, 
when  I  acted  as  sub-treasurer  ;  or, 

2.  That  it  is  now  greatly  oppressive  in  asking  for  new  bonds  under  the 
present  system,  as  if  new  bonds  are  insisted  upon,  that  the  amount  should 
be  as  large  as  they  were  before. 

The  receiver's  bond  should  be  considered  as  removing,  to  some  extent 
at  least,  the  burden  formerly  thrown  upon  the  collector. 

If  the  circular  requirement  is  abandoned,  as  it  must  be  under  the  opinion 
of  the  Attorney  General,  I  have  not  a  word  to  say,  because  there  is  power 
in  the  Department  to  call  for  additional  sureties  at  all  times.  That  call 
has  been  [made]  upon  me  once,  and  it  was  complied  with,  and  would  be 
again ;  but  I  will  not  submit  to  any  executive  outside  of  the  law,  when  de- 
manded as  a  matter  of  right. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  my  present  official  bond  is  perfect.  It  has 
often  been  held,  by  the  highest  judicial  authority,  "  that  the  condition  of  a 
bond,  that  the  officer  shall  well  and  truly  execute  the  duties  of  his  office, 
includes  not  only  honesty,  but  reasonable  skill  and  diligence." 

That  is  the  condition  of  my  present  bond ;  and  I  defy  the  most  astute  to 
find  a  word  in  the  act  of  the  4th  of  July,  embracing  the  duties  of  the  office 
of  collector,  which  renders  it  necessary  to  create  a  new  bond ;  and  there- 
fore I  feel  myself  justified,  under  the  present  views  of  the  case,  in  declining 
voluntarily  to  give  a  new  bond,  and  more  especially  such  a  bond  as  has 
been  sent  to  me. 

"  In  compliance  with  your  request,  I  have  carefully  considered  Mr. 
Hoyt's  remarks,  but  am  unable  to  feel  myself  warranted  in  advising  a  de- 
viation from  the  course  which  has  been  decided,  and,  as  I  understand,  al- 
ready acted  upon  by  your  Department  in  other  similar  cases." 

It  is  sufficient  for  me  to  say  that  this,  in  my  judgment,  is  in  direct  col- 
lision with  that  part  of  the  letter  before  referred  to,  so  far  as  the  legal 
question  is  concerned.  That  is  the  only  question  with  which  I  have  any 
connexion  in  the  present  discussion. 

Respectfully, 

J.  H0YT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbubv, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


245 


0. 

Custom-Hou3e,  New  York,  July  10,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  received  your  letter  of  tlie  8th  instant  this  morning,  in  which  you 
call  my  attention  to  the  9th  section  of  the  act  in  relation  to  the  collection, 
safe  keeping,  and  disbursement  of  the  public  moneys,  which  will  receive 
my  attention.  I  received,  yesterday  morning,  the  Glebe,  in  which  the  act 
was  published,  but  had  not  the  opportunity  to  read  it  till  last  evening.  I 
supposed  that  I  should  receive  a  copy  from  the  Comptroller,  with  particular 
instructions  concerning  it,  and  therefore  I  did  not  think  of  putting  it  in 
operation  till  that  time ;  but,  on  the  receipt  of  your  letter  this  morning,  I 
concluded  that  it  was  my  duty  to  put  it  in  operation  as  soon  as  possible. 

On  consulting  with  the  auditor  and  cashier,  we  found  it  necessary  to  alter 
the  form  of  our  books,  which  we  could  not  do  so  as  to  be  ready  before 
Monday  morning;  and  I  therefore  published,  in  all  the  evening  papers,  a 
notice,  a  copy  of  which  I  enclose.  I  also  send  a  form  of  a  certificate,  which 
I  propose  to  take  from  the  receiver  general ;  and  the  question  in  my  mind 
is,  whether  there  should  not  be  separate  ones  for  the  specie  and  for  the 
bank  paper. 

I  would  be  glad  to  know  your  views  upon  the  subject. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodburt, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  July  13,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  received  your  letter  of  the  11th,  in  answer  to  mine  of  the  10th 
instant,  this  morning;  and  I  inferred,  from  what  you  stated  in  reference  to 
instructions  that  were  in  the  course  of  preparation,  that  you  did  not  intend 
that  I  should  act  upon  the  19th  section  of  the  Sub-Treasury  bill  until  these 
instructions  came ;  and  I  accordingly  have  not  acted,  as  I  gave  notice  I 
should ;  but  I  put  up  a  notice  in  the  office,  a  copy  of  which  I  enclose. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  July  20,  1840. 
Sir:  I  commenced  to-day  the  execution  of  the  law  of  the  4th  instant,  in 
relation  to  the  collection,  &c,  of  the  public  money.    It  is  attended  with 
some  extra  trouble,  but  we  have  got  along  very  well;  and,  as  soon  as  we 
can  mature  a  system,  I  think  we  shall  have  less  difficulty. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


246 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  5,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  have  had  a  correspondence  with  the  First  Comptroller  of  the 
Treasury,  in  relation  to  your  requisition  upon  me  for  a  new  bond  under 
the  Sth  section  of  the  Sub-Treasury  law. 

He  enclosed  me  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  the  Attorney  General,  under 
date  of  31st  of  July  last,  by  which  it  would  appear  that  he  was  of  opinion 
that  I  was  a  depositary  under  that  section,  and  consequently  was  bound  to 
give  a  new  bond. 

1  did  not  raise  the  point  without  reflection  and  examination,  and  I  sup- 
posed there  could  not  be  a  shadow  of  doubt  upon  the  subject ;  and,  in  the 
absence  of  any  reason  assigned  by  the  Attorney  General,  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  his  opinion  has  not  wholly  removed  the  strong  belief  I  had  before 
entertained. 

I  gave,  originally,  bonds  in  the  sum  of  $150,000  ;  they  were  subsequent- 
ly increased  $50,000  ;  sq  that  I  am  now  in  bonds  for  $200,000  ;  and  1  am 
now  called  upon,  notwithstanding  my  responsibilities  as  well  as  the  risks 
of  the  United  States  are  greatly  diminished,  to  give  new  bonds  also  in 
the  sum  of  $200,000,  which  is  as  large  as  the  receiver  general  of  the  dis- 
trict is  required  to  give,  which  1  think  is  somewhat  oppressive. 

But,  apart  from  that  consideration,  I  cannot  divest  myself  of  the  idea 
that  I  cannot  be  called  upon  under  the  section  referred  to.  My  repug- 
nance to  submit  to  an  exaction  not  authorized  by  law  is  in  no  sense 
diminished.  On  a  former  occasion,  when  I  was  not  satisfied  with  the 
opinion  of  the  late  Attorney  General  on  the  u  protest  money  question," 
you  submitted  an  argument  from  me  a  second  time  to  that  officer.  I  now 
enclose  you  an  argument  on  the  present  subject,  which  1  have  drawn  up, 
and  which  I  would  be  glad  to  have  laid  before  the  Attorney  General. 

I  address  myself  to  you  at  this  time,  in  consequence  of  the  Comptroller's 
absence  from  the  seat,  of  Government. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


J.  Hoyt's  argument. 

The  collector  at  New  York  has  been  called  upon  by  the  Treasury  De- 
partment to  give  a  bond  in  the  penalty  of  $200,000,  under  the  Sth  section 
of  the  act  of  4th  July,  1840,  "to  provide  for  the  collection,  safe  keeping, 
transfer,  and  disbursement,  of  the  public  revenue." 

The  question  is,  whether  the  collectors  of  the  ports  of  New  York, 
Boston,  and  Charleston,  are  depositaries  under  the  section  referred  to. 

Remarks. 

1  have  looked  attentively  through  all  the  provisions  of  the  act  referred 
to,  and  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  collectors  named  in  the  ques- 
tion are  not  depositaries  under  this  act,  and  cannot  be  called  upon,  under 
the  8th  section  thereof,  "  to  execute  bonds,  new  and  suitable  in  their  terms, 
to  meet  the  new  and  increased  duties  imposed  upon  them,  respectively." 


Rep.  No.  669. 


247 


Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  law  in  question,  and  under  the  system  of 
keeping  the  public  moneys  in  banks,  collectors  of  the  customs  gave  the  or- 
dinary official  bonds  "  truly  and  faithfully  to  execute  and  discharge  all  the 
•  duties  of  said  office  according  to  law." 

These  duties  were  to  collect,  pay  over,  or  deposite  the  public  moneys,  ac- 
cording to  the  directions  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ;  and  if  not  so 
done,  the  bond  was  considered  forfeited  ;  and  cases  have  been  known 
where  a  resort  has  been  had  to  such  bond. 

The  6th  section  of  the  act  of  the  4th  of  July,  1840,  and  the  only  one 
ihat  points  to  the  specific  duties  and  obligations  of  "  all  collectors,"  does 
not  enlarge  or  diminish  the  obligations  or  responsibilities  of  "  all  collectors," 
but  it  simply  declares,  in  terms,  what  was  before  the  law  of  the  land  ;  and 
hence,  collectors  who  have  acted  as  disbursing  officers  or  as  Treasury 
agents  since  the  suspension  of  the  banks  were  not  called  upon  to  increase 
their  bonds,  by  reason  of  these  new  duties. 

The  object  of  the  act  (which,  for  the  sake  of  brevity,  I  will  call  the  Sub- 
Treasury  law)  was  the  creation  of  certain  officers  of  the  United  States,  to 
perform  the  duties  heretofore  performed  by  the  banks,  and  more  recently 
by  collectors,  and  the  5th  and  7th  sections  of  the  act  provide  for  the  "ap- 
pointment of  these  officers  and  the  securities  they  are  to  give,  and  they 
are  denominated  in  the  8th  section  "depositaries  hereby  constituted;"  and 
the  9th  section  provides  that  "all  collectors,"  &c, "  within  the  cities  of  New 
York,  Boston,  Charleston,  and  St.  Louis,  shall,  upon  the  same  direction, 
[that  is,  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,]  pay  over  to  the 
receiver  general  of  public  money  in  the  respective  cities,"  &c,  "  all  public 
money  collected  by  them,"  &c,  "  to  be  safely  kept  by  said  respective  de- 
positaries until  otherwise  disposed  of  according  to  law." 

We  have  in  this  a  plain  declaration  of  the  obligations  and  duties  of  the 
collectors,  and  also  of  the  receivers  ;  the  former  are  still  called  "collectors," 
and  the  latter  "  depositaries." 

The  act  must  receive  a  construction  in  harmony  with  the  intention  of 
Congress  in  devising  this  new  system  for  the  safe  keeping  of  the  public 
moneys. 

It  will  be  observed  that,  by  the  10th  section,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury has  power  "  to  transfer  moneys  in  the  hands  of  any  one  depositary, 
constituted  by  that  act,  to  any  other  depositary  constituted  by  the  same." 

If  the  collectors  referred  to  in  the  question  are  such  depositaries,  then 
the  Secretary  can  transfer  from  the  collector  at  New  York  to  the  collector 
at  Charleston,  St.  Louis,  Wiscasset,  or  Castine.  This,  surely,  was  not  the 
intention  of  Congress  in  adopting  the  provision  referred  to,  because  it 
might  lead  to  great  abuses,  and  put  in  more  imminent  jeopardy  the  public 
funds  than  they  ever  had  been  under  the  old  system. 

If  the  collectors  referred  to  are  not  depositaries  within  the  meaning  of 
the  8th  section,  then  such  transfer  could  not  be  made,  and  consequently 
there  is  no  power  in  the  Secretary  to  call  upon  them  for  new  bonds  under 
that  section. 

Again,  the  11th  section  of  the  act  declares  that  the  money  in  the  custody 
of  any  of  the  depositaries  constituted  by  the  act  shall  be  considered  and 
held  as  deposited  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  and 
shall  be  subject  to  his  draft. 

There  is  no  authority  fqr  depositing  money  with  the  collectors  referred 
to  iu  the  question.   The  public  moneys  they  receive  are  not  "  deposites," 


248 


Rep.  No.  669. 


but  moneys  collected,  and  which  goes  not  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer, 
but  to  the  United  States  ;  and  it  is  to  be  taken  out  of  their  hands,  not  by 
the  Treasurer,  but  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

It  is  moreover  provided,  by  the  same  section,  "  that  each  depositary  shall 
make  returns  to  the  Treasury  and  Post  Office  Departments  of  all  moneys 
received  and  paid  by  him,  at  such  times  and  in  such  forms  as  shall  be  di- 
rected by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  or  the  Postmaster  General ;"  "each 
depositary"  must  mean  all  depositaries  under  the  act,  and  all  are  to  make 
returns;  and  if  the  collector  is  a  depositary,  he  is  as  much  under  the  con- 
trol, in  this  respect,  of  the  Postmaster  General  as  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury.  Prior  to  the  passage  of  the  law  in  question,  the  collectors  re- 
ferred to  were  depositaries  of  the  public  moneys;  and  by  the  15th  section 
of  the  act  the  Secretary  is  required  to  withdraw  the  money  from  such  de- 
positaries, and  confine  the  safe  keeping,  transfer,  and  disbursement,  to  "the 
depositaries  established  by  this  act." 

This  plainly  indicates  that  former  depositaries  ceased  to  be  so  after  the 
passage  of  this  law.  I  have  already  stated  that,  by  the  11th  section,  the 
money  is  to  be  taken  from  the  hands  of  the  depositaries  by  the  Treasurer's 
draft;  and  the  23d  section  makes  further  provision  on  this  subject.  The 
Treasurer  is  not  to  draw  drafts  on  the  collector  referred  to,  for  the  reason  1 
have  before  stated ;  and  hence  they  are  not  to  be  considered  as  "  deposi- 
taries." 

I  might  ask  if  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  would  consider  it  a  safe  or 
legal  exercise  of  his  powers  to  require  marshals,  district  attorneys,  and  the 
other  officers  referred  to  in  the  16th  section  of  the  act,  to  deposite  moneys 
in  the  hands  of  either  of  the  collectors  named  in  the  question,  "as  deposi- 
taries constituted  by  this  act." 

If  not,  can  they  be  held  depositaries  for  one  purpose  and  not  for  all  pur- 
poses ? 

It  is  no  doubt  true  there  are  some  collectors  of  customs  who  will  be  con- 
tinued, from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  as  "  depositaries,"  from  the  great 
distance  they  are  from  the  office  of  any  of  the  receivers  or  of  the  mints — 
such,  for  instance,  as  the  collector  at  Buffalo,  Champlain,  &c;  but  whether 
they  are  so,  under  the  Sth  section  of  the  act,  is  another  question,  and  one 
for  the  purposes  of  this  argument  it  is  not  necessary  to  discuss ;  but  if  it 
was  so,  the  marked  distinction  between  collectors  of  ports  where  there  is 
no  receiver,  and  those  where  there  are,  would  occur  to  any  one. 

I  might  refer  to  other  sections  of  the  act,  equally  significant  with  those 
I  have  already  referred  to,  which  would  lead  to  the  same  results;  but  I 
think  I  have  already  made  it  sufficiently  obvious  that  the  collectors  at  New 
York,  Boston,  and  Charleston, cannot  be  deemed  "depositaries"  under  the 
8th  section  of  the  act  before  mentioned. 

New  York,  August  5,  1S40. 


*  Custom-House,  New  York,  August  15,  1840. 

Sir:  I  was  disappointed  in  not  receiving  instructions  from  the  Comptrol- 
ler to-day,  in  answer  to  my  letter  of  the  10th  inst.  The  receiver  has  omit- 
ted to  prepare  the  form  of  his  receipts,  under  the  belief  that  my  letter  would 
have  been  answered  before  this ;  and,  upon  consultation  with  him,  we 


Rep.  No.  669. 


249 


thought  it  best  to  omit  to  transfer  to  him  until  Monday  morning,  by  which 
time,  as  two  mails  will  have  reached  us,  we  shall  no  doubt  have  the  ne- 
cessary orders. 

I  shall  therefore  omit  to  close  the  business  of  the  week  till  then.  The 
amount  we  could  have  transferred  for  the  receipts  of  the  week,  is  one  hun- 
dred thousand  dollars. 

We  have  had  an  unexpected  activity  in  business  yesterday  and  to-day. 
A  large  number  of  woollen  entries  have  passed  through,  which  has  swelled 
up  the  cash  duties  to  an  amount  we  could  not  have  anticipated. 

In  one  entry  of  the  kind,  the  duties  on  the  appraised  value  exceeded 
over  $1,000  the  amount  of  duties  on  the  invoice  value.  You  will  there- 
fore perceive  that  we  do  not  neglect  the  woollens  loft  of  the  appraisers'  de- 
partment. 

I  think  we  have  a  prospect  of  some  activity  in  business  for  a  short  time. 

The  steamer  President,  which  is  hourly  expected,  I  understand  has  a 
good  many  woollens  on  board;  and,  upon  looking  at  the  cockets  of  the  Hunts- 
ville,  which  arrived  yesterday  from  Liverpool,  1  find  she  has  more  than  the 
usual  proportions  of  woollens. 

The  packet  South  America,  which  may  be  also  hourly  expected,  has,  I 
am  informed  by  her  owners,  about  800  cases  of  dry  goods  and  hardware ; 
and,  if  there  are  not  too  many  "  bleached  and  unbleached  linen  and  worsted 
stuff  goods,"  we  shall  soon  be  in  the  receipt  of  more  duties  than  I  had  an- 
ticipated. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collects. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Attorney  General's  Office,  August  14,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  of  the  6th  instant,  relative  to 
the  opinion  expressed  by  me  on  the  31st  July,  as  to  the  propriety  of  the 
collector  of  the  port  of  New  York  giving  a  new  bond,  to  embrace  the  duties 
and  responsibilities  that  may  devolve  upon  him  under  the  provisions  of  the 
act  of  4th  July,  1840,  and  enclosing  a  letter  from  Mr.  Hoyt  on  the  subject. 

In  compliance  with  your  request,  I  have  carefully  considered  Mr.  Hoyt's 
remarks,  but  am  unable  to  see  myself  warranted  in  advising  a  deviation 
from  the  course  which  has  been  decided,  and, as  I  understand,  already  acted 
upon  by  your  Department  in  other  similar  cases. 

On  one  suggestion  of  Mr.  Hoyt's  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  say  a  word. 
He  observes  that  he  is  already  under  bond  for  $200,000,  and  that  to  re- 
quire him  to  give  a  new  bond  in  the  sum  of  $200,000  is  somewhat  op- 
pressive, evidently  understanding  that  the  new  bond  is  in  addition  to  the 
former.  I  am  of  opinion  that  such  additional  bond  is  not  required  by  the 
act  of  4th  July,  1840,  but  merely  a  new  bond,  which  shall  embrace  the  new 
duties  and  responsibilities  that  may  be  devolved  on  the  collector,  as  well  • 
as  those  previously  required  of  him,  and  the  amount  of  which  need  not  ex- 
ceed his  present  security,  if  that  sum  is  such  as  seems  reasonable  and  safe 
to  the  proper  officers  of  the  Department. 

Very  respectfully.  &c. 

H.  D.  GILPIN. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


250 


Rep.  No,  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  28,  1840. 
Sir:  I  am  again  at  the  office,  but  against  the  advice  of  my  physician; 
but  I  think,  with  moderate  exertions,  I  am  as  well  off  here  as  I  would  be 
at  home. 

We  have  three  Liverpool  packets  to-day,  besides  several  transient  ves- 
sels. One  of  the  packets  has  a  good  cargo,  and  I  therefore  hope  that  the 
new  activity  in  business  will  continue.  The  Journal  of  Commerce  of  this 
morning,  you  will  see,  has  alluded  to  the  matter,  much  to  the  annoyance 
of  some  people. 

I  enclose  you  a  note  from  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor,  to  me,  in  relation  to 
paying  over  the  balance  of  the  Treasurer's  account  to  the  receiver  general. 
In  all  matters  in  relation  to  my  accounts,  I  wish  Mr.  Fleming's  sugges- 
tions could  be  adopted,  if  there  is  no  impropriety  in  the  matter. 

In  reference  to  the  accounts  of  this  office  I  am  entirely,  as  you  must  be 
aware,  in  the  power  of  the  clerks,  who  keep  them  under  the  direction  of 
the  auditor.  Though  I  think  myself  a  good  accountant,  the  impractica- 
bility of  examining  them,  so  as  personally  to  know  their  accuracy,  renders 
it  indispensable  for  me  to  rely  entirely  upon  others,  and  therefore  it  is  that 
I  appeal  to  Mr.  Fleming  on  all  questions  connected  with  the  accounts,  irt 
whom  I  have  implicit  confidence,  or  I  should  be  very  unhappy  at  my  re- 
sponsibilities. 

Mr.  Allen,  the  receiver,  called  on  me  this  morning,  to  say  that  I  must  de- 
posite  to-morrow  morning  by  half  past  10,  as  he  should  leave  the  office  at 
that  hour,  to  be  out  of  town  for  the  day.  I  asked,  if  any  drafts  came,  who 
was  to  pay  them.  He  replied,  that  he  had  informed  you  that  he  must  have 
certain  Saturdays  to  himself. 

Verv  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 


Treasury  Department,  Jiugust  29,  1840. 
Sir  :  Yours  of  the  28th  instant,  enclosing  a  note  addressed  to  you  by 
the  auditor,  Mr.  Fleming,  of  the  same  date,  has  been  received. 

I  regret  it  is  not  convenient  to  draw  for  the  balance  on  hand,  as  suggest- 
ed, and  trust  it  will  be  immediately  deposited  with  the  receiver  general. 

I  am,  &c, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hott,  Esq.,  Collector fyc. 


P. 

New  York,  February  23,  1841. 
Dear  Sir:  It  being  well  understood  that  you  have  been  selected  as  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  under  the  coming  administration  of  General  Har- 
rison, I  have  therefore  taken  the  liberty  to  solicit  the  favorof  you,dearsir,  to 
present  to  the  President  my  application  for  the  office  of  appraiser  in  the  cus- 


Rep.  No.  669.  251 

torn-house  department  of  New  York,  which  is  herewith  enclosed,  containing 
the  names  and  firms  of  a  number  of  the  most  prominent  and  respectable 
mercantile  houses  of  this  city.  I  have  only  further  to  add,  as  evidence  of 
my  qualifications  and  fitness  for  the  office  of  appraiser,  that  from  boyhood 
to  the  present  time  I  have  been  constantly  engaged  in  mercantile  pursuits, 
and  for  more  than  twenty  years  an  extensive  dealer  and  importer  of  various 
descriptions  of  goods,  from  almost  every  part  of  the  world,  and  have  for 
the  last  eleven  or  twelve  years  been  actively  employed  in  the  appraising 
department  of  the  public  store,  where  I  trust  I  have  been  usefully  and  prom- 
inently known. 

For  further  particulars,  respecting  my  qualification  and  general  character, 
I  beg  to  refer  you  to  the  Hon.  Abbott  Lawrence  who,  I  understand,  is  now 
in  Washington. 

Very  respect fu  11  v, 

.WILLIAM  CAIRNS. 

Hon.  Thomas  Ewing. 


The  undersigned  respectfully  present  the  name  of  William  Cairns  as  a 
candidate  for  the  office  of  appraiser  in  the  custom-house  department  in 
New  York,  and  recommend  him  with  confidence  for  the  appointment,  from 
their  knowledge  of  his  respectable  character,  his  long  practical  experience 
as  a  merchant,  and  more  recently  from  his  position  as  an  assistant  in  the 
office  here,  for  the  examination  and  appraisement  of  foreign  merchandise, 

GOODHUE  &  CO. 

G.  G.  HOWLAND. 

C.  0.  HALSTEAD. 

TOOKER,  MEAD,  &  CO. 

HALSTEAD,  HAINES,  &  CO. 

W.  W.  DE  FOREST  &  CO. 

GRINNELL,  MINTURN,  &  CO 

CHARLES  H.  RUSSELL. 

WILLIAM  H.  RUSSELL. 

McCURDY  &  ALARICK. 

HICKS  &  CO. 

MASTERS,  MARKOE,  k  CO. 

New  York,  February  20,  184 1. 



New  York,  March  15,  1841. 

Mr  Dear  Sir  :  Were  I  personally  interested  in  the  appointment  of  ap- 
praisers for  this  port,  I  should  be  more  reserved  in  my  communications  to 
you.  But  as  my  own  interest  cannot,  by  possibility,  as  I  am  aware  of,  be 
affected  by  the  appointment  of  any  one  individual  more  than  another,  I 
am  prompted  only  by  a  sense  of  duty  to  the  Government  and  my  mercan- 
tile friends  to  make  such  suggestions  as  I  feel  may  be  of  service  in  produc- 
ing a  desirable  reform  ;  and  with  this  view  would  now  direct  your  atten- 
tion to  an  article  in  the  Journal  of  Commerce  of  Saturday  morning,  13th, 
on  the  subject  of  this  store  and  the  custom-house  generally,  elucidating,  as 
I  think,  pretty  clearly,  the  remark  I  have  often  made  to  your  brother,  and 
perhaps  to  yourself,  that  the  rogues  who  have  been  so  long  depredating  on 
the  revenue  were  only  put  down,  not  annihilated,  by  the  active  exertions 


252 


Rep.  No.  669. 


of  Mr.  Hoyt ;  and,  that  the  moment  they  found  a  person  in  his  place  who 
was  less  familiar  with  their  tricks,  they  would  show  their  heads  again. 
The  article  I  allude  to  I  consider  the  first  move  towards  their  reappearance  ; 
and  I  regret  most  sincerely  to  say  that  I  fear  they  feel,  with  too  much  cer- 
tainty, that  they  have  not  lost  that  influence  over  our  appraisers  which  they 
once  possessed.  I  will  endeavor  to  illustrate  the  idea  by  an  example. 
After  the  appearance  of  the  article  above  referred  to,  on  Saturday,  the  ap- 
praisers sent  a  message  by  a  clerk  to  Mr.  Cairns,  that  he  must  make  no 
more  appraisements  of  cloths,  unless  one  of  them  was  present — Mr.  Louns- 
berry,  the  assistant  appraiser,  who  acts  with  him  generally,  having  been 
sick  at  home  for  three  weeks  past,  and  not  one  of  the  appraisers  proper 
had  come  near  him,  (Mr.  C.,)  or  offered  their  services  in  any  shape.  This 
request  of  theirs  is  certainly  well  enough,  if  either  of  them  knew  any  thing 
about  cloths  ;  but  not  one  of  them  is  capable  of  making  an  appraisement,  of 
that  description  of  goods«at  least,  and  but  one  of  them  of  any  other.  The 
reason  that  Mr.  Cairns  was  placed  in  that  department  by  Mr.  Hoyt  was, 
because  he  found  Mr.  Lounsberry  very  inefficient,  and  the  appraisers  in- 
capable, and  they  have  therefore  entertained  a  jealousy  towards  Mr. 
Cairns  ever  since  he  was  called  to  act  in  the  capacity  of  appraiser;  and  it 
now  looks  much  to  me  as  if,  having  got  rid  of  the  vigilance  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  they 
were  preparing  to  get  clear  of  Mr.  Cairns  also,  as  I  find  they  begin  to  feel 
some  confidence  that  they  may  be  retained  in  office.  Vanity  is  often  harm- 
less, but  not  so  in  this  case,  for  I  consider  this  disposition  to  lessen  the  use- 
fulness of  Mr.  Cairns  (by  far  the  most  competent  man  about  this  establish- 
ment) positively  injurious,  and  the  sooner  a  change  is  effected,  if  one  is  to 
be  made,  the  better  for  the  Government  and  all  concerned  in  its  interests. 
Under  the  direction  of  such  men  as  Mr.  Cairns,  Mr.  Brown,  and  Mr.  Savage, 
the  two  first  in  particular,  this  appraisers'  department  might  soon  be  brought 
back  to  the  elevated  stand  it  held  under  Abraham  R.  Lawrence  and  Jen- 
kins, during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Adams;  for,  since  their  removal  to 
the  present  moment,  the  character  and  usefulness  of  the  establishment  has 
been  constantly  lessening,  in  my  humble  opinion. 

I  have  heard  the  names  of  several  other  applicants  since  my  last  com- 
munication, but  none  amongst  the  whole  whom  I  think  at  all  qualified  as 
the  three  I  have  named. 

Mr.  Brown  called  on  me  to-day,  and  will  return  to  Washington  on 
Wednesday  or  Thursday.  I  am  pleased  that  he  feels  there  may  be  a  pros- 
pect of  his  succeeding.  He  is  truly  an  intelligent  merchant,  and  a  man  of 
sound,  discreet  judgment.  His  opinion  of  Mr.  Cairns  is  worthy  of  notice 
also. 

Mr.  Brown  informs  me  that  you  will  leave  Washington  soon.  Should  you 
stop  in  the  city  on  your  return,  it  will  afford  me  pleasure  to  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  paying  my  respects  to  you  personally. 

With  great  respect,  &c. 

G.  A.  WASSON. 

Hon.  Abbott  Lawrence,  Washington,  D.  C. 


X. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  September  12,  1840. 
Sir  :  From  an  interview  I  had  to-day  with  the  receiver  general,  in  rela- 
tion to  fitting  up  his  room  in  the  new  custom-house,  I  am  reminded  to  ask 


Rep.  No.  669. 


you  from  what  fund  are  the  expenses  to  be  placed,  for  furnishing  the  new 
building  with  what  furniture  will  be  required.  Are  they  to  be  paid  by 
the  commissioners,  and  charged  to  construction,  or  are  they  to  be  charged  to 
any  other,  and  what,  account  ? 

We  are  finishing  the  building  to  completion  as  fast  as  possible,  and  the 
superintendent  has  frequently  culled  upon  me  for  directions  as  to  the  fur- 
niture, &c. 

I  would  be  glad  of  an  answer  to  this  at  your  earliest  leisure.  It  seems 
to  me  that  it  is  a  proper  charge  for  the  construction,  and  to  be  paid  from 
the  appropriation. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Y. 

Custom-House,  New  Yore,  November  10,  1840. 

Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  October  27,  stating  that  the  commission- 
ers of  the  new  custom-house  building  at  New  York  have  reported  to  the 
department  that  the  building  was  completed,  and  made  ready  for  the  re- 
ception of  the  officers  of  the  customs  in  this  district,  I  have  to  say  that,  as 
one  of  these  commissioners,  I  had  no  knowledge  that  such  a  report  was  to 
be  made,  and,  if  I  had  known  it,  I  could  not  have  concurred  in  it.  I  visited 
the  building  yesterday,  with  the  naval  officer,  and  several  of  the  gentlemen 
attached  to  this  office,  and  we  found  the  building  in  a  very  unfit  state  for 
our  reception,  as  well  for  the  reason  that  the  plastering  is  not  yet  all  on,  as 
because  of  the  extreme  dampness  of  the  rooms,  which  would  be  so  preju- 
dicial to  health  that  none  of  the  gentlemen  were  willing  to  risk  the  expo- 
sure. 

I  wrote  a  note  to  Mr.  Frazee,  the  superintendent,  this  morning,  and  1 
send  you  a  copy  of  his  reply.  I  suggest  that  you  ask  Congress  for  an  ap- 
propriation to  purchase  furniture  for  the  building.  Most  of  that  which  we 
have  in  the  building  we  now  occupy  is  wholly  unfit,  and  could  not  be 
made  so,  for  the  reason  that  the  shape  of  the  rooms  in  the  two  buildings  is 
so  unlike.  I  think  it  would  require  from  five  to  seven  thousand  dollars,  in 
addition  to  the  furniture  we  now  have,  that  could  be  used,  to  fit  up  all  the 
rooms.  I  think  the  appropriation  should  be  made  early  in  the  session,  to 
the  end  that  all  suitable  accommodation  should  be  afforded  for  the  transac- 
tion of  the  public  business.  Mr.  Frazee  is  of  opinion  that  a  larger  sum 
would  be  required  than  I  have  named,  and  his  judgment  probably  is  bet- 
ter than  mine  in  that  matter.  He  thinks  none  of  the  old  furniture  is  fit  to 
be  used,  but  I  differ  in  opinion  with  him  on  that  question. 

I  am,  &e. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


254 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Z.  *<.v  *>* 

Treasury  Department,  November  13,  1840 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  10th  instant,  enclosing  copy  of  one  addressed  to 
you  by  Mr.  Frazee,  architect  of  the  new  custom-house  building,  has  been 
received. 

It  appearing  to  be  the  opinion  of  yourself  and  the  architect,  that  the 
building  is  not  yet  in  a  suitable  condition  to  be  occupied  for  custom-house 
purposes,  your  removal  must  necessarily  be  postponed  for  the  present. 

In  regard  to  the  furniture  required  for  the  respective  rooms,  I  shall  be 
happy  to  submit  the  matter  to  the  appropriate  committee  at  the  meeting  of 
Congress. 

In  the  mean  time,  it  is  desirable  that  Mr.  Frazee  should  furnish  the  De- 
partment with  a  detailed  estimate  of  the  amount  of  money  required  for  the 
object  stated,  to  be  laid  before  the  committee. 

I  am  sir,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


AA. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  December  12,  1S40. 
Sir  :  In  pursuance  of  the  request  in  your  letter  of  the  13th  of  Novem- 
ber last,  I  now  forward  you  a  letter  from  Mr.  Frazee,  addressed  to  me,  en- 
closing an  estimate  made  by  Mr.  John  Horsepool,  for  the  furniture  for  the 
new  custom-house.  I  have  retained  it  for  a  day  or  two,  for  the  purpose  of 
making  some  further  inquiries.  This  estimate  overruns  the  amount  I  had  for- 
merly stated,  what  I  deemed  to  be  sufficient  for  the  purpose.  In  expressing 
my  own  views  on  a  former  occasion,  I  had  consulted  no  one,  but  it  was  from 
a  very  superficial  knowledge  of  the  subject.  The  estimate  now  sent  is 
a  detailed  one,  and  such  as  I  presume  you  desired.  I  still  think  that  $1 5,000 
would  be  sufficient.  I  do  not  concur  with  Mr.  Frazee  in  the  opiniou  ex- 
pressed by  him,  that  but  little  of  the  old  furniture  can  be  used.  I  think  it 
will  answer  for  the  smaller  rooms  in  the  second  and  third  stories. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


BB. 

Examination  of  Lester  Wilson,  referred  to  in  the  report  of  George 
Poindexter  and  IVm.  A.  Bradley,  December  16,1841. 

Question.  Where  is  your  residence  and  what  is  your  occupation  ? 
Answer.  I  reside  in  New  York,  and  am,  professionally,  a  merchant. 
Question.  Do  you  know  any  thing  of  the  purchase  or  sale  of  offices  La 


Rep.  No.  669.  255 


the  New  York  custom-house,  or  of  the  offer  of  such  purchase  or  sale  ? 
State  what  you  know  on  (he  subject. 

Answer.  Some  time  in  the  month  of  June  last,  John  Whitaker,  one 
of  the  night  watch  of  the  New  York  custom-house,  showed  mc  a  note,  in 
the  handwriting  of  George  Curtis,  which  had  been  left  at  the  United  States 
barge  office  for  him.  I  requested  hirn  to  let  me  see  it,  but  he  had  already, 
while  I  was  making  the  request,  thrown  it  into  the  stove.  I  only  saw  the 
superscription,  which  I  recognised  as  being  in  the  handwriting  of  George 
Curtis.  He  would  have  shown  it  to  me,  but  he  said  he  could  tell  me  its 
contents.  He  said  it  was  a  "dun"  from  George  Curtis  for  his  monthly  pay, 
out  of  his  wages,  $10  per  month,  which  he  stipulated  to  pay  at  the  time  ho 
received  his  appointment.  He  sard  the  note  was  giving  him  a  blowing  up 
for  letting  ten  days  pass  by  without  paying  his  instalment,  according  to 

j  contract.  He  told  me  that,  at  the  time  he  received  his  appointment,  he  took 
a  note  from  George  to  Edward  Curtis,  on  the  presentation  of  which  he  pro- 
cured it.  The  payment  was  in  extinguishment  of  a  judgment  obtained 
against  him  for  an  endorsement  on  a  note  drawn  by  Mr.  Hatch.  A  note  was 
originally  given,  I  believe,  to  raise  money  for  election  purposes  when  Mr.  Cur- 
tis was  a  candidate  for  Congress,  and  was  for  a  renewal  of  a  note  of  #50, 
drawn  at  first  in  favor  of  Mr.  Edward  Curtis,  which  Whitaker  paid  at  ma- 
turity ;  but,  in  order  to  repay  the  money  for  the  first  note,  he  procured  the 
note  of  Hatch  in  his  own  favor,  which  was  taken  by  Mr.  Edward  Curtis, 

i  and  finally  prosecuted  to  judgment,  and  which,  with  costs  and  interest, 
amounted  to  near  $83.    I  do  not  remember  whether  he  said  it  was  prose- 

i  cuted  in  the  name  of  Edward  and  George  Curtis,  either  separately  or 
jointly,  but  that  it  was  and  is  the  property  of  one  or  both  of  them.  Ed- 
ward Curtis,  however,  discounted  the  note  originally.  About  the  middle  of 
November,  he  came  to  me  in  want  of  money,  and  I  inquired  of  him  whether 

;  he  had  paid  his  instalments  to  George  Curtis ;  he  said  he  had  not ;  he 

I  did  not  like  to  go  to  his  office,  but  wished  to  meet  him  in  the  street,  that  he 
might  ubeg  off,"  as  he  could  not  pay  it.  He  then  told  me  that  he  had  paid 
him  all  the  instalments  for  four  months,  within  two  dollars,  amounting  to 
$38.  He  also  said  that  the  balance  was  $45,  and,  if  he  could  get  the 
money,  he  would  pay  up  the  whole;  and  that  Mr.  George  Curtis  had 
promised  him- that  if  he  would  do  so,  he  would  see  that  he  was  appointed 
to  the  office  of  inspector,  which  he  said  would  be  worth  #90  per  month  to 
him,  instead  of  the  one  which  he  now  held,  which  was  only  worth  $1  50 
a  day.  He  drew  an  assignment  to  me,  for  the  purpose  of  procuring  this 
money  of  a  dividend,  which  will  become  due  to  him  as  the  guardian  of  his 
children,  in  the  court  of  chancery,  amounting  to  $30,  in  February  next. 
He  said  his  object  was  to  get  money  to  pay  up  his  indebtedness,  and  receive 
the  office  of  inspector.  My  conversations  with  him  have  been  frequent,  on 
the  subject;  they  originated,  usually,  because  he  wished  my  assistance, 
which  has  been  occasionally  rendered.  In  questioning  what  he  did  with 
his  wages,  at  the  first  conversation,  he  hesitated,  but  finally  told  me  of  the 
arrangement  with  Mr.  Curtis,  as  his  apology  for  his  wants.  Whenever  he 
has  received  his  wages,  he  has  always  manifested  great  uneasiness  if  he 
were  not  able  to  pay  George  Curtis,  fearing,  he  said,  that,  unless  he  did  so, 
he  should  not  obtain  the  higher  office  of  inspector.  Within  a  short  time 
he  told  me  that  he  had  met  George  Curtis,  and  that  he  had  granted  him  the 
indulgence  in  relation  to  the  last  instalment;  and  added,  that  Mr.  George 
Curtis  said,  "  Wait  till  the  commission  of  investigation  adjourn,  and  then 


256 


Rep.  No.  669. 


I  will  help  you  to  get  the  higher  office;  as  the  commissioners,  while  they 
are  pretending  to  investigate  the  affairs  of  the  custom-house,  are  only  try- 
ing my  brother,  Edward  Curtis/' 

L.  WILSON. 

Sworn  before  me,  this  1 7th  of  December,  1841. 

COR.  MATHEWS,  Commissioner  of  Dues, 
and  acting  as  such,  under  the  Investigating  Committee. 


DD. 

[private.] 

New  Yorx,  December  12,  1838. 

Mr  Dear  Sir:  I  have  your  private  letter  of  the -9th.  I  believe  I  have 
complied  with  all  that  you  require,  but  I  am  not  certain.  If  not,  be  pleased 
to  let  me  know.  I  have  written  so  much  in  relation  to  Price's  affairs,  that  I 
have  not  time  to  resort  to  my  books,  and  I  certainly  cannot  recollect.  More- 
over, my  book  of  "  correspondence  with  the  law  officers"  is  up  at  Butler's 
house,  who  took  the  oath  of  office  to-day.  He  wanted  to  postpone  it  un- 
til to-morrow,  but  I  pushed  him  up  to  the  work  to-day. 

I  now  feel  greatly  relieved.  I  have  had  an  awful  time  of  it  since  I  have 
been  in  office. 

Send  me  a  copy  of  the  Secretary's  report  on  Swartwout's  affairs  as  soon 
as  published. 

Will  Congress  now  see  the  necessity  of  legislation  ? 

In  haste,  &c. 

J.  HOYT. 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Esq.,  Solicitor,  fyc. 


Extract  of  a  letter  from  J.  Hoyt,  Collector  at  New  York,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin, 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  dated  New  York,  Wednesday  evening,  De- 
cember 12,183S. 

I  have  now  stated  the  two  points  in  your  last  letter,  which  I  did  not 
allude  to  this  morning.  There  is  one  other  of  a  consolatory  character 
which  I  ought  to  thank  you  for  reminding  me  of ;  that  is,  that  "  these 
troubles  are  good  for  me."  I  have  no  doubt  you  have  heard  the  Presi- 
dent say,  for  I  have  heard  him  say  similar  things  under  similar  circumstan- 
ces, that  the  outrageous  flogging  we  got  in  this  State  this  fall  would  be  of 
great  benefit  to  us.  I  like  the  benefit,"  but  I  abhor  the  flogging]  I  might 
make  a  similar  reply  to  your  morality  on  the  subject  referred  to.  The 
"good"  I  am  thankful  for;  the  "  troubles'*  I  will  dispose  of  the  best  way 
I  can.  God  knows  I  am  no  stranger  to  them,  and  have  not  been,  either  as 
"man  or  boy,"  for  forty-five  years;  nevertheless,!  appreciate  your  kind  feel- 
ing for  the  suggestionsthat  naturally  grow  out  of  the  occasion, and  I  thank  you 
sincerely  for  them,  because  I  know  you  feel  and  mean  what  you  say,  and  there- 
fore I  know  how  to  appreciate  it.    The  declarationof  the  great  poet,  that 


Rep.  No.  669. 


257 


"it  is  a  d  d  bad  world  we  live  in,  and  the  fewer  we  praise  the  better,*' 

was  never  more  happily  illustrated  than  in  the  scenes  of  the  last  and 
present  year.  But  I  am  amused  with  Mr.  Butler  ;  he  is  so  terrified  at  the 
iniquity  of  the  age,  that  he  has  made  up  his  mind  not  to  receive  a  dollar 
of  the  public  money,  but  he  intends  to  make  me  receive  all,  and  I  am  quite 
apprehensive  that  he  will  not  receive  even  his  own  costs.  I  am  quite  sure 
he  will  not  receive  halt*  as  much  as  he  will  be  entitled  to.  I  shall  lecture,  him 
on  this  subject,  as  well  with  reference  to  his  own  benefit  as  the  public  in- 
terest; for  if  there  is  not  a  reasonable  penalty  imposed  upon  commercial 
negligence,  punctuality  ceases  to  exist.  Under  Swartwout,  the  first  houses 
in  reputation  were  in  the  habit  of  letting  their  bonds  lie  over  for  days,  and 
that  habit  was  of  so  general  a  character  it  did  not  affect  their  standing  or 
credit,  even  if  was  known  ;  and  after  the  suspension  of  specie  payments, 
when  the  bonds  were  collected  at  the  custom-house,  it  was  not  known,  if 
they  did  lie  over ;  and  hence  I  have  been  frequently  charged  with  a  desire 
to  benefit  the  district  attorney,  when  I  sent  the  bonds  to  his  office,  in  pur- 
suance of  instructions  and  the  law. 


EE. 

Examination  of  John  M.  Winant  and  J.  C.  Robertson,  referred  to  in  the 
report  of  Geo.  Poindexter  and  fVm.  A.  Bradley. 

Question.  Where  is  your  residence  and  what  is  your  occupation  ? 

Answer.  I  reside  in  New  York,  and  am  a  blacksmith  by  trade. 

Question.  What  is  the  usual  price  of  iron  work,  both  wrought  and  cast  \ 
and  what  has  been  the  price  of  such  work  as  is  furnished  in  the  new  cus- 
tom-house at  New  York  ;  and  has  there  been  any  material  alteration  in 
the  prices  during  the  period  from  January,  1837,  to  January,  1842  ?  State, 
if  you  please,  particularly  what  is  and  has  been  the  fair  market  value  for 
the  articles  of  shutters,  sashes,  doors,  chain  bars,  anchors,  cramps,  &c,  of 
the  kind  alluded  to. 

Answer.  The  price  of  iron  is  somewhat  less  now  than  it  was  in  1837, 
and  it  has  been  gradually  diminishing  since  that  time.  Wrought  iron  is 
about  one  cent  and  a  quarter  less  per  pound  than  in  1837,  and  cast  iron 
about  one  half  cent  per  pound.  The  prices  of  the  articles  such  as  are  fur- 
nished in  the  New  York  custom-house,  which  I  have  seen,  would,  for 
wrought  iron,  be  as  follows  : 

For  shutters,  about  eighteen  and  a  half  cents  per  pound  ;  and  the  sashes 
with  them  would  be  worth  about  the  same.  Wrought-iron  doors  of  the 
weight  and  quality  furnished  to  the  custom-house  (which  are  very  heavy) 
would  be  worth  about  the  same  price ;  all  the  common  doors  are  worth 
about  twelve  and  a  half  cents.  The  iron  work,  consisting  of  railings 
in  the  inside  of  the  custom-house,  and  of  the  quality  furnished,  was  worth, 
in  1837,  about  twelve  and  a  half  cents;  it  could  now  be  furnished  at  about 
ten  cents  per  pound.  The  prices  which  I  should  affix  to  ail  the  articles  at 
the  two  different  periods  would  be  as  follows  : 

In  1837.  In  1840. 

Doors,  (the  labor  being  the  principal  value)    -  18£  cts.        184  cts. 

Sashes  and  shutters,  do.  do.        -  184  18| 

Iron  railing,  inside  121  10 


258 


Eep.  No.  669. 


In  1837.     In  1840. 

Chain  bars,  (supposed  to  be  cramp  anchors.)  of  English 

iron,  not  keyed       -  Sets.  6cts. 

If  keyed         ------       10  8 

Anchors,  cramps,  &c.  -  -  -  -  -8  6 

Chain  bars,  if  keyed,  made  of  Russia  iron,  would  be  worth  about  two 
cents  per  pound  more. 

The  Sub-Treasury  vault  in  the  custom-house  is  worth  about  182  cents 
per  pound.  The  outside  railing  of  the  custom-house  is  worth  about  eight 
cents  per  pound  ;  and  the  desk  stands  the  same  price. 

JOHN  M.  WINANT. 

Having  read  the  examination  of  Mr.  J.  M.  Winant,  and  examined  the 
work  at  the  custom-house,  I  fully  concur  in  the  statements  contained  in  his 
testimony. 

J.  C.  ROBERTSON. 


FF. 

Letter  of  Edward  Curtis  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury preferred  to  in 
the  import  of  Geo.  Poindexter  and  Wm.  .2.  Bradley. 

Collector's  Office,  New  York,  March  14,  1842. 

Sir  :  An  inquiry  has  been  made,  respecting  the  causes  which  have  pro- 
duced the  great  increase  in  the  expense  of  collecting  the  revenue  in  this 
district. 

In  selecting  two  periods  between  which  to  make  a  comparison,  I  take 
the  last,  year  as  being  one,  during  part  of  which  the  office  of  collector  was 
held  by  me,  and  1829,  as  being  sufficiently  remote  to  include  in  the  interval 
the  various  circumstances  which  it  will  be  necessary  for  me  to  detail. 
The  total  amount  of  duties  collected  at  this  port  in  1829 

was       -------  #13,052,676  36 

Ditto  in  1841        ------    10,802,119  94 


Excess  of  1829  above  1841  -  2.250,556  42 


The  expenses  incurred  in  collecting  in  1S41  were  -      #598,435  61 

Ditto  in  1829        ------        212,531  07 


Excess  oi  1S41  above  1829         -  385,904  54 


The  question,  then,  is,  why  it  cost  #385,904  54  more  in  1841  to  collect 
duties  #2,250,556  42  less  than  1829  ? 

The  great  increase  of  business  at  this  port  since  the  year  1829  has  caused 
more  than  a  corresponding  increase  in  the  expense  of  collecting  the  revenue. 
The  number  of  importing  merchants  has  more  than  doubled,  and  the  in- 
creased facilities  of  commerce  and  correspondence  offered  by  steam  navi- 
gation have  induced  them  to  increase  the  number  and  diminish  the  extent 
of  their  orders — so  that  the  merchandise,  which  formerly  came  in  invoices  of 
*  from  20  to  50  packages,  now  comes  in  invoices  of  from  2  to  10,  thereby 


Rep.  No.  669. 


259 


increasing  largely  the  number  of  entries  for  the  same  quantity  of  goods, 
and  producing  more  labor  and  more  cost  in  every  department  of  the  reve- 
nue system.  I  have  ascertained,  from  actual  examination,  that  the  total 
number  of  entries  during  the  year  1841  was  -  42,324 
Ditto  in  1S29    -------  19,559 


Excess  in  1841  -  22,765 


But  it  should  be  noted,  that  on  the  1st  of  July,  1841,  an  alteration  was 
made  in  the  system  of  entries,  by  which  free  and  dutiable  goods,  and 
owners  and  agents'  goods,  were  allowed  to  be  included  in  the  same  entry, 
instead  of  separate  entries  being  required  for  each  of  these  classes.  The 
effect  of  this  alteration  has  been  to  reduce  the  number  of  entries  to  one-half 
of  what  they  would  have  been  under  the  former  system.  If,  then,  we  sup- 
pose the  business  of  the  year  to  have  been  equally  distributed  through  its 
four  quarters,  the  fair  mode  of  stating  the  number  of  entries  for  the  pur- 
pose of  this  comparison  would  be,  1.4,108  for  each  of  the  two  quarters  be- 
j  tween  January  1  and  July  1,  and  7,054  for  each  of  the  subsequent  qnar- 
I  ters,  and  14.108  must  be  added  to  42,324,  the  actual  number  of  entries — 
I  making  the  amount  of  business  indicated  thereby  nearly  three  times  as 
great  as  it  was  in  1S29. 

The  tonnage  of  vessels  entering  this  port  in  1841        -  -  549,279 

The  tonnage  of  vessels  entering  this  port  in  1S29        -  -  281,511 

Excess  in  1841  -  267,76S 


This  is  a  very  important  item  in  the  account  of  increased  expenditure. 
Each  vessel  must  be  placed  under  the  charge  of  at  least  one  inspector;  ?nd, 
in  the  case  of  packets  and  steamships,  two  or  more  are  frequently  required. 
And,  in  addition,  each  requires  the  services  of  a  weigher,  gauger,  or  meas- 
urer, or  all  three  of  these  officers,  if  the  cargo  includes  articles  to  be  weighed* 
gauged,  or  measured ;  and  each  vessel  arriving  at  night  must  be  placed  un- 
der the  care  of  another  officer,  called  a  night  inspector. 

In  proof  that  the  expenditure  is  not  regulated  by  the  amount  of  duties 
collected,  but  by  the  number  of  persons  from  whom  it  is  collected,  by  the 
frequency  of  their  entries,  and  by  the  number  of  arrivals,  I  presume  that 
these  statements  may  be  deemed  conclusive. 

But  the  character  of  the  tariff  at  these  respective  periods  is  an  important 
element  in  the  inquiry.  Of  ad  valorem  goods,  I  take  a  single  item  as  a 
specimen. 

In  1829,  cloths  and  cassimeres  paid  40  per  cent,  before  and  45  per  cent, 
after  June,  1S30;  in  1S41,  they  paid  38  per  cent.  Of  goods  paying 
specific  duties,  and  imported  largely,  I  select  a  few,  as  being  sufficient  for 
my  purpose,  and  state  the  value  imported  of  each  in  1840,  by  the  annuaL 
statement  of  the  Treasury: 


5 


280 


Rep.  No.  669. 


*  Articles. 



Va'ue 

T")ntv  in  1  ft2Q 

Thilv    in  1  ftd  1 
u u i v    in  ion. 

lVlOldooro   -  - 

$9  Qnn  nnn 
,yuu,uuu 

Sugar,  brown 

- 

4,740,000 

3  cents 

2£  cents. 

Sugar,  white 

830,000 

4  cents 

3§  cents. 

Bar  iron,  rolled  - 

1,707,649 

$37 

$30. 

Bar  iron,  not  rolled 

l,6S9,S3l 

#1  12 

90  cents. 

Salt 

1,015,426 

20  cents 

1 0  cents. 

And  it  must  be  recollected  that  this  deficiency  in  the  duties  of  1841,  as 
compared  with  those  of  1829,  was  increased  by  the  operation  of  the  com- 
promise act,  which  took  off  four-tenths  of  the  difference  between  20  per 
cent,  ad  valorem  and  the  specific  duty.  But  this  comparison  is  peculiarly 
important,  when  applied  to  the  class  of  free  goods.  By  the  following  table 
it  appears  that,  in  1S40,  seven  classes  of  merchandise,  valued  at  $32,850,000, 
were  imported  freeof  duty,  which  in  1829  would  have  paid  duties  amount- 
ing to  $17,165,000;  and  on  that  same  valuation  the  duties  of  1829  upon 
other  articles,  free  in  1840,  would  have  raised  the  result  to  the  enormous 
sum  of  $20,000,000. 

Table  of  seven  classes  of  merchandise  exempted  from  duty  in  1840,  with 
the  value  of  the  imports  of  the  same  article  in  1840,  [taken  from  the 
Treasury  report,  rejecting  the  fractional  parts  of  $10,000,)  the  rate 
of  duty  in  1829,  and  the  amount  of  revenue  which  would  have  been 
collected  in  1840,  if  the  tariff  of  that  year  had  been  the  same  as  1829. 


Articles. 

Value. 

Pounds. 

Kate. 

Revenue. 

Teas  - 

Coffees               -          -  - 
Fruit  - 

Spices      -          -          -  - 
Silk  and  silk  and  worsted  goods 
Worsted  stuff  goods 
Jitnens  and  other  manufactures  of 
Iiemp  and  flax  - 

$5,410,000 
8,540,000 
1,200,000 
550,000 

10,000,000 
2,380,000 

4,770,000 

19,981,476 
94,996,095 
22,809,704 
8,464,795 

35  cents* 
5  cent* 

^  Different  rates 

20  per  cent.  - 
25  per  cent.  - 

25  per  cent.  - 

$6,993,500 
4,749,800 
C  886,200 
I  748,000 
2,000,000 
595,000 

1,192,500 

32,850,000 

17,165,000 

*  In  1829  teas  paid  as  follows  : 


Teas. 

In  American 
vessels. 

In  foreign  ves- 
sels. 

Remark. 

Bohea  ----- 
Souchong,  &c.  -  -  -  - 
Imperial,  Sic.  -  -  -  - 
Hyson,  &c.  -  -  -  - 
Hyson  skin  - 

12  cents 
25  cents 
50  cents 
40  cents 
28  cents 

14  cents 
34  cents 
68  cents 
56  cents 
38  cents 

[35  cents  is  probablj 
j    under  the  average. 

J 

Rep.  No.  669.  261 

Assuming,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  the  value  of  the  respective  im- 
ports in  1841  was  the  same  as  that  of  1840,  and  that  the  proportion  of  the 
whole  amount  which  was  imported  into  this  district  in  each  year  was  the 
same — -that  of  184  )  being  56  millions  out  of  107,  or  say  one-half — the  ef- 
fect upon  the  relative  duties  collected  in  1829  and  1841  would  be  thus: 
Actual  collection  of  duties  in  1841  -  -  -  $10,S02,119  94 

Add  one-half  of  the  additional  amount  which  would  have 
been  collected  if  all  the  dutiable  goods  of  1829  had  re- 
mained dutiable  in  1841  -  10,000,000  00 
Actual  collection  of  duties  in  1829           ...    13,052,676  36 
Excess  of  1S41  above  1829          ....      7,749,443  58 
If  to  this  excess  were  added  that  which  results  from  the  diminished  du- 
ties iu  the  ad  valorem  and  specific  classes,  the  duties  of  1S41  would  be 
found  to  be  nearly  double  those  of  1S29. 

I  will  add,  as  a  curious  fact  in  connexion  with  this  inquiry,  that  the  whole 
number  of  arrivals  from  Canton  in  18^9  was  six,  paying  $880,608  duties  ; 
fin  1S41,  was  fourteen,  paying  $38,718  duties;  and  that  vessels  from  Can- 
Iton  in  1829,  paying  duties  of  $100,000  to  $200,000,  having  few  owners, 
and  of  course  requiring  but  few  entries,  demanded  but  little  labor,  and  oc- 
cupied [no]  more  than  one  folio  of  the  import  book  ;  whereas  a  packet  from 
England  or  France,  in  1841,  paying  duties  of  $40,000  or  $50,000,  will 
sometimes  require  seven  folios. 

But  the  increase  of  value  is  not,  in  itself,  a  sufficient  criterion  for  the  de- 
cision of  this  question.  The  law  requires  one  package  out  of  every  invoice, 
and  at  least  one  package  out  of  every  twenty,  to  be  sent  to  the  appraisers' 
store  for  examination.  From  the  causes  already  mentioned,  the  importa- 
tions, although  greater  in  amount,  are  smaller  in  detail,  and,  consequently, 
the  number  of  invoices  has  increased  in  a  disproportionate  degree.  This 
adds  largely  to  the  labor  required,  makes  a  demand  for  increased  vigil- 
ance, and  requires  a  greater  numerical  force  in  every  department  of  the 
I  custom-house. 

The  cost  of  cartage  of  goods  to  the  public  stores,  and  of  labor  done  after 
they  are  received,  is  now  paid  by  the  United  States,  and  swells  the  charge 
of  collecting  the  revenue.  This  was  not  the  case  in  1829.  At  that  time 
these  charges  were  paid  by  the  importer  ;  but  as  it  was  in  protection  of  the 
interest  of  the  Government  that  goods  were  sent  to  the  public  store,  and 
as  the  merchants  complained  of  the  exaction,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
directed  that  they  should  be  paid  out  of  the  receipts  of  the  customs. 

But  even  if  it  should  appear  that  the  amount  paid  for  salaries,  &c,  had 
increased  to  a  degree  more  than  corresponding  with  the  increase  of  busi- 
ness, it  would  be  accounted  for  [by]  the  following  circumstances :  It  was 
ascertained,  some  years  since,  that  the  sums  annually  received  by  the  clerks 
were  inadequate  to  their  comfortable  support,  under  the  enhanced  rates  at- 
tached to  all  the  necessaries  of  life  ;  and  that  they  were  under  the  tempta- 
tions offered  by  pecuniary  rewards  from  the  merchant,  for  exhibiting  pref- 
erences in  the  despatch  of  business.  To  remedy  this  evil,  the  salaries  were 
moderately  increased,  and  imperative  orders  issued  that  no  compensation 
should  be  received  from  the  merchant,  for  the  rendering  of  any  services  con- 
nected with  the  regular  business  of  the  custom-house.  I  have  been  vigil- 
ant in  efforts  to  detect  any  violation  of  these  orders ;  and  am  convinced 
that  none  of  the  clerks  receive  any  private  compensation. 

The  amount  of  clerk  hire  and  the  general  expenses  of  the  establishment 


262 


Rep.  No.  669. 


have  also  been  increased  by  the  extention  of  the  number  of  light-houses. 
In  lS29,only  twelve  were  under  the  superintendence  of  the  collector  of  this 
district.  In  1S41  the  number  had  been  increased  to  twenty  ;  and  these  in- 
volved a  large  amount  of  labor,  and  required  a  multiplicity  of  accounts. 

Previously  to  my  term  of  office,  there  was  no  department  in  the  custom- 
house for  the  examining  of  the  calculations  and  extensions  of  the  invoices. 
These  were  uniformly  taken  as  correct, ;  but  the  evils  and  dangers  of  this 
course  having  been  suggested  to  me  at  an  early  date,  I  made  the  requisite 
arrangements  for  a  close  scrutiny  of  every  invoice  which  has  been  present- 
ed for  entry.  These  arrangements  have  been  sanctioned  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury.  Seven  clerks  have  been  continually  employed  in  this  duty 
for  several  months;  numerous  errors  in  favor  of  and  against  the  revenue 
have  been  detected ;  and  the  fact  that  such  examination  is  made  cannot 
fail  to  secure  greater  accuracy  on  the  part  of  shippers  and  importers. 

-Another  cause  for  the  increased  expense  of  collecting  the  revenue  is 
found  in  the  circumstance  that  the  existing  tariff,  as  modified  by  the  com- 
promise act,  differs  in  its  character  from  that  of  1S29,  in  the  complexity  of 
the  details  requisite  for  ascertaining  its  results.  We  are  now  obliged  to 
keep  and  render  separate  accounts  and  abstracts  for  plain  glass,  cut  glass, 
wine,  wool,  and  woollen  yarn,  a  labor  which  was  formerly  unknown.  Be- 
sides, the  calculating  the  duties  on  an  entry,  which  was  formerly  a  simple 
process,  is  now  complicated  by  the  necessity  of  deducting  so  many  tenths 
from  the  excess  over  20  per  cent. ;  which  more  than  doubles  the  number  of 
figures  employed  in  each  calculation  ;  and  the  necessity  of  exhibiting  the  re- 
sults of  the  gradual  reductions  in  the  import  books  adds  at  least  one-third  to 
the  complexity  and  labor  of  the  duty  performed  by  those  who  keep  them. 

In  estimating  the  expenses,  relatively,  of  1S29  and  1841,  it  should  be 
recollected  that,  during  the  first  period,  the  Government  owned  the  build- 
ing in  which  the  revenue  was  collected,  and  paid  a  very  small  rent  for 
stores  ;  while,  in  IS41,  the  necessities  of  the  service  required  that  various 
buildings  should  be  hired,  at  a  rent  of  $25,000  ;  and  that  in  1841  there 
was  an  extra  expenditure  of  about  $16,000  more  than  in  1S40,  in  the  item 
of  "  revenue  cutters,"  for  a  complete  repairing  and  refitting  of  the  schooner 
Jackson,  with  the  intention,  as  was  supposed,  of  equipping  her  as  an  arm- 
ed vessel  for  a  distant  cruise. 

In  connexion  with  this  inquiry,  I  would  suggest  that  in  England  the 
charges  for  collecting  the  customs  for  the  year  ending  January  5,  1833, 
■were  as  follows  : 

Civil  department  jes64,S37 
Harbor  vessels  -  5,420 
Cruisers  -  145,774 
Preventive  service  -  341,978 
Land  guard  1S,352 

1,376,361 


And  the  official  value  of  imports  for  the  same  year  was  £43,237,417.  The 
expense  of  collection,  therefore,  is  within  a  fraction  of  3±  per  cent,  on  the 
value  of  imports;  while  the  value  of  imports  at  New  York,  in  1S40,  was 
$56,845,924,  and  the  expense  of  collecting  $560,201  02,  or  a  fraction  less 
than  1  per  cent.  In  England,  the  civil  department  alone  costs  2  per  cent, 
upon  the  value. 


Kep.  JNo.  (569. 


263 


The  total  value  of  importations  into  the  United  States  in  1840  was 
$107,000,000  ;  the  total  expense  of  collecting  $1,800,000,  or  nearly  1$  per 
cent. ;  while  the  expenses  of  collecting  in  the  same  year  $57,000,000  at 
this  port,  was  a  little  less  than  1  per  cent. 

I  should  have  mentioned,  in  connexion  with  the  statement  of  tonnage 
entering  this  port  in  1829  and  1841,  that  the  arrivals  from  foreign  ports 
were,  in  1S41  -  2,125 

And  in  1829  -  1,199 


Excess  in  1841       -------  926 


The  principal  differences  between  the  expenses  of  1S29  and  1841  will 
:be  found  in  the  following  items  : 


Object  of  expenditure. 

In  1829. 

In  1841. 

Inspectors,  &c.  - 
Appraisers  - 
Revenue  boats  - 
Revenue  cutters  - 
Rent,  &c,  of  custom-house* 

$140,987  98 
10,197  S5 
5,888  40 
19,801  OS 

$323,053  48 
87,669  83 
12,2S4  75 
40,433  27 
13,544  73 

176,875  31 

476,986  06 

In  1829  no  night  inspectors  were  appointed.  There  are  now  81,  each 
receiving  $545  per  annum.  I  am  convinced  that  the  security  of  the  rev- 
enue requires  that  they  should  be  retained.  The  increase  of  the  number 
of  vessels  arriving  at  night,  together  with  the  enlargement  of  the  district 
within  which  business  is  transacted,  render  me  unwilling  to  recommend 
the  discontinuing  of  the  employment  of  this  class  of  officers. 

The  various  circumstances  which  I  have  stated  to  illustrate  the  great 
increase  of  the  business  of  this  port  since  1829  appear  to  arford  a  satisfac- 
tory explanation  of  the  increase,  to  the  amount  of  $300,000,  in  the  items 
just  quoted;  and  the  same  circumstances,  together  with  the  advance  in  the 
rates  paid  to  the  clerks,  respectively,  and  the  necessary  increase  in  their 
numbers,  will  account  for  the  remaining  $S5,000  of  excess. 

I  respectfully  submit  these  facts  and  observations,  in  proof  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  my  opinion,  that  there  is  no  propriety  in  adopting  the  amount 
of  revenue  collected  as  a  criterion  for  determining  the  cost  of  collecting  it 
I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient,  servant, 

EDWARD  CURTIS,  Collector. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


•  Being  the  amount  of  rent,  exclusive  of  the  stores  occupied  by  the  appraisers  ;  the  rent  of 
them  being  included  in  the  second  item. 


264 


Hep.  No.  669. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Governor  Poin  dexter  to  Walter  Forward. 

Philabelphia,  October  23,  1841. 

Sir  :  The  interview  which  I  had  with  the  President  on  Wednesday- 
evening  last,  in  your  presence,  related  more  particularly  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  a  new  hoard  of  commissioners,  to  continue  the  investigations,  here- 
tofore authorized,  into  the  affairs  of  the  New  York  custom-house.  That 
matter  being  settled,  we  withdrew  from  the  room  before  I  had  an  opportu- 
tunity  of  a  full  conversation  respecting  the  restoration  of  Joseph  R.  Bleecker 
to  the  office  of  assistant  cashier  in  the  custom-house,  who  was  removed  to 
make  room  for  the  brother-in-law  of  Mr.  Kelley,  one  of  the  commissioners. 
My  opinion  of  this  act  of  the  collector,  and  of  the  causes  which  produced 
it,  has  been  made  known  in  ex te?iso,  both  to  the  President  and  yourself.  I 
need  not  now  repeat  that  opinion.  But  having  been  left  in  doubt,  by  the 
very  brief  remarks  of  the  President,  as  to  the  course  which  is  to  be  taken 
on  the  subject  of  restoring  Mr.  Bleecker,  I  deem  it  proper  to  inquire  of  you,, 
in  advance  of  my  arrival  in  New  York,  whether  this  individual,  so  un- 
justly removed  from  office,  under  circumstances,  to  say  the  least,  of  doubt- 
ful integrity  and  purity  of  motive  on  the  part  of  the  collector,  is  to  be  re- 
stored to  his  former  office  or  not  ? 

I  ought  to  have  made  this  explicit  inquiry  before  I  left  Washington,  and 
should  have  done  so,  but  for  the  clear  impression  which  rested  on  my 
mind,  from  repeated  conversations  previously  had  with  the  President  and 
yourself,  that  this  act  of  the  collector  would  be  rebuked  by  replacing  Mr. 
Bleecker  in  the  office  from  which  he  had  been  expelled  without  cause. 
This  is  a  matter  involving  considerations  paramount  to  the  personal  mer- 
its of  tha  officer  removed  or  of  the  present  incumbent.  On  that  branch  of 
the  subject,  I  might  rely  on  the  testimonials  already  furnished  to  the  Presi- 
dent, and  on  file  in  your  Department;  but  I  leave  it  entirely  out  of  the 
case,  and  shall  regard  the  question  as  one  of  official  responsibility,  disrobed 
of  all  extraneous  considerations.  I  gave  my  official  pledge  to  Mr.  Bleecker,. 
and  to  the  other  officers  of  the  customs,  that  in  case  he  or  they  testified 
fully  and  honestly,  before  the  commissioners,  as  to  the  conduct  of  the  sev- 
eral collectors  under  whom  they  had  served,  each  officer  so  testifying  should 
be  protected  from  removal.  I  was  authorized  to  give  this  pledge  by  Presi- 
dent Tyler.  Mr.  Bleecker  gave  important  testimony,  and  was  removed 
very  soon  thereafter,  with  a  certificate  of  good  behavior  !  I  made  an  offi- 
cial communication  of  the  facts,  as  they  were  known  to  me,  (and  I  certainly 
would  state  none  on  doubtful  authority,)  respecting  this  extraordinary  ex- 
ercise of  power  by  the  collector,  to  the  President.  The  same  facts  have 
been  since  repeated  to  him  in  conversation,  on  several  occasions,  as  I  sup- 
posed, with  effect.  But  it  seems  that  my  official  letters  have  been  traversed, 
and  the  collector,  on  whose  conduct  I  reported  under  my  commission,  ha& 
been  appealed  to,  to  admit  or  deny  their  verity. 

I  understand  the  President  to  say  that  he  (Curtis)  charged  the  removal. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


265 


of  Bleecker  and  the  appointment  of  Wells  on  Mr.  Ewing  and  Mr.  Kelley, 

and  promised  further  explanations,  which  he  alleged  would  be  satisfactory. 
His  own  letter  of  removal  to  Mr.  Bleecker  is  a  direct  contradiction  to  the 
whole  of  this  statement.  You  can  readily  refer  to  the  copy  of  that  letter  in 
your  possession,  and  you  will  find  that  the  reason  given  by  Curtis  for  the 
removal  is, that  he  desires  to  have  his  own  friends  near  to  his  person  in  the 
offices  connected  with  the  custom-house.  He  says  nothing  about  any  or- 
der from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  or  Mr.  Kelley.  But  although  I 
have  abundant  proof  of  the  corruption  which  entered  into  this  transaction, 
I  deem  it  wholly  inconsistent  with  my  official  relations  with  the  President 
and  the  Treasury  Depart ment  to  make  up  an  issue  of  fact  on  this  or  any 
other  subject  with  the  collector  whose  conduct  it  became  my  official  duty 
to  investigate,  as  one  of  the  commissioners,  and  on  which  I  am  required  to 
make  a  faithful  report.  If  the  accuracy  of  any  statement  of  fact  made  in 
mv  official  letters  is  doubted,  I  am  an  unfit  person  to  hold  the  parchment 
of  the  Executive  one  single  moment.  But,  above  all,  it  may  be  regarded  as 
clearly  inadmissible  to  ask  the  guilty  party  whether  his  judge  has  present- 
ed  an  impartial  statement  of  facts.  If  my  official  reports,  made  within  the 
powers  granted  by  my  commission,  are  to  be  thrown  back  before  the  de- 
linquent officers,  to  test  their  truth  or  falsehood,  I  must  say  I  do  not  envy 
such  employment. 

You  will  readily  perceive  that  the  future  inquiries  of  the  commissioners 
-  must  depend  very  much  on  the  evidence  of  the  custom-house  officers.  If 
they  can  implicate  the  collector,  will  they  do  it  at  the  hazard  of  incarring- 
his  displeasure  and  removal  from  office?  In  some  mode  or  other  he  will 
hold  up  this  terror  before  them.  If  I  should,  by  authority,  pledge  the 
Government  for  their  protection,  what  will  be  the  conclusions  at  which 
they  must  arrive  ?  Why,  you  promised  to  protect  Mr.  Bleecker.  He  has 
been  removed,  and  is  not  reinstated.  We  may  share  the  same  fate  if  we 
rely  on  your  assurances. 

I  will  add  only  one  other  reflection,  which  strikes  my  mind  on  this  sub- 
ject. Should  the  collector  and  other  officers  of  the  customs  be  induced  to 
believe  that  my  representations  are  not  treated  with  respect  at  Washing- 
ton, and  acted  on  accordingly,  I  can  be  of  no  service  as  a  commissioner  in 
New  Fork.  If  Bleecker  is  not  restored,  what  other  conclusion  can  they 
draw  ? 

I  take  no  interest  in  these  individuals,  so  far  as  they  are  personally  con- 
cerned; but  the  case  is  strongly  impregnated  with  official  corruption,  and 
deeply  concerns  me,  as  one  of  the  commissioners,  from  the  course  which  it 
has  taken.  I  therefore  most  respectfully  ask  an  early  answer  to  the  in- 
quiry, Will  Joseph  R.  Bleecker  be  restored  to  the  office  of  assistant  cashier 
in  the  New  York  custom-house,  from  which  he  was  removed  by  Edward 
Curtis,  collector  of  that  port  ? 

I  shall  proceed  to  New  York  to-morrow,  and  await  with  anxiety  your 
reply  to  this  communication. 

To  renewed  assurances  of  my  high  personal  regard  for  President  Tyler, 
and  my  sincere  wish  for  the  success  and  glory  of  his  administration,  I  beg 
leave  to  add  the  great  respect  and  consideration  with  which  I  am  your 
friend  and  obedient  servant. 

GEORGE  POI^DEXTER. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward. 


• 


266 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  Governor  Poindexter. 

Washington,  October  25,  1841. 
Dear  Sir:  Your  letter,  dated  at  Philadelphia,  on  the  23d  instant,  has 
just  reached  me. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  has  power  to  prescribe  the  number  and 
compensation  of  clerks  in  the  custom-houses,  but  possesses  no  authority  to 
negative  their  appointment  by  the  collectors.  Acts  of  oppression,  favorit- 
ism, corruption  in  the  exercise  of  the  appointing  power,  by  collectors,  may 
furnish  grounds  for  removing  them  from  office  ;  but  that  is  a  matter  with 
which  1  have  legally  no  concern,  falling,  as  it  does,  within  the  proper  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Executive.  1  thought  proper  to  mention  the  case  of  Mr. 
Bleecker  to  him,  and  to  advert  to  what  was  understood  to  be  an  assurance 
of  protection  to  the  clerks  who  would  appear  and  testify  before  the  com- 
missioners. His  answer  was  substantially  the  same  as  that  given  to  you 
at  our  late  interview  with  him.  [  will  again  call  his  attention  to  the  sub- 
ject, and  make  known  your  views  as  to  the  necessity  of  restoring  Mr. 
Bleecker  without  delay. 

In  the  mean  time,  I  beg  you,  my  dear  sir,  to  give  us  the  benefit  of  your 
talents  and  weight  of  character  in  a  careful  inquisition  into  the  transac- 
tions of  the  custom-house. 

My  confidence  in  the  President  is  such  as  to  preclude  every  doubt  of  his 
purpose  to  do  justice  to  Mr.  Bleecker  and  all  others  who  may  think  them- 
selves aggrieved.  He  was,  as  you  know,  pressed  every  hour  of  the  day 
by  matters  of  urgent  business,  or  the  importunities  of  persons  seeking  pub- 
lic employment.  He  probably  supposed  that  the  case  of  Mr.  Bleecker, 
however  apparently  clear,  ought  not  to  be  decided  without  affording  an 
opportunity  to  the  collector  of  showing  that  his  power  had  not  been  im- 
properly used.  The  delay  in  attending  to  the  matter  may  be  accounted 
for  by  the  circumstances  just  mentioned,  or  perhaps  by  the  fact  that  the 
President  did  not  suppose  that  immediate  action  in  the  case  was  of  much 
importance.  But  however  it  may  have  been,  I  am  certain  that  his  course 
will  be  such  as  you  yourself  will  approve,  because  it  will  be  honest  and 
fearless. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  with  the  greatest  respect,  your  friend  and  obedient  ser- 
vant, 

WALTER  FORWARD. 

Gov.  Poindexter. 


George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

New  York,  November  12,  1841. 
Sir:  I  had  hoped  the  pleasure  of  a  short  conversation  with  you  on  your 
transit  through  New  York  from  Boston,  but  the  very  limited  time  which 
you  allowed  yourself  to  remain  here  prevented  it.  I  regret  to  say  that  all 
the  anticipations  contained  in  my  letter  to  you  from  Philadelphia  have 
been  fully  realized,  since  the  commissioners  commenced  their  investiga- 
tions. Thev custom-house  officers,  it  is  true,  are  compelled  to  attend  when 
summoned  before  us,  but  no  one  can  mistake  the  fears  which  operate  on 
their  minds  while  giving  testimony,  or  the  equivocal  manner  in  which  they 


Rep.  No.  669. 


267 


answer  our  questions.  They  are  a  disciplined  corps.  I  feel  no  hesitation 
in  saying  that  Mr.  Curtis  will,  as  far  as  practicable,  shield  himself  from  our 
scrutiny,  by  holding  out  the  terrors  of  removal  to  any  officer  of  the  cus- 
toms who  may  give  evidence  against  him.  On  this  subject  there  can  be 
no  mistake.  Bleeckeris  not  restored,  and  the  rest  look  for  the  same  treat- 
ment. A  day  or  two  ago  we  detected  a  most  shameful  intrigue  on  the 
part  of  the  collector  and  his  cashier,  Mr.  Waters,  to  blacken  the  character 
of  Mr.  Bleecker.  by  obtaining  a  certificate  from  George  R.  Ives,  late  an 
importing  merchant,  that,  while  Mr.  Bleecker  was  assistant  cashier,  he  had 
paid  a  consideration  in  money  for  facilities  and  services  rendered  to  him 
at  the  custom-house  by  Mr.  Bleecker.  Mr.  Ives  was  waited  on  twice 
by  the  cashier,  to  obtain  the  desired  certificate,  but  not  finding  Mr.  Ives  at 
home,  he  left  a  message  with  the  clerk  at  his  counting-house,  desiring  his 
attendance  at  the  custom-house  immediately  on  his  return.  At  that  inter- 
view, which  took  place  as  requested,  Mr.  Waters,  the  cashier,  swears  that 
Mr.  Ives  stated,  both  to  him  and  Mr.  Curtis,  that  he  had  rewarded  Mr. 
Bleecker,  by  advances  of  money,  for  holding  back  his  checks,  which  were 
received  at  the  custom-house  as  cash,  in  payment  of  duty  bonds.  Mr. 
Waters  denied,  on  oath,  having  invited  Mr.  Ives  for  any  such  purpose, 
which  is  expressly  contradicted  by  the  clerk,  Mr.  Abbot,  to  whom  Mr. 
Ives  communicated  the  fact  that  he  had  gone  to  the  custom-house  on  the 
business  of  preventing  the  reappointment  of  Mr.  Bleecker.  The  same 
Mr.  Ives,  in  August  last,  testified  before  the  commissioners,  in  his  record- 
ed evidence,  that  he  never,  at  any  time,  advanced  one  cent  to  Mr.  Bleecker 
for  facilities  in  the  discharge  of  his  official  duties.  This  attempt  was  made 
to  fortify  Mr.  Curtis  at  Washington  for  the  act  of  removing  Mr.  Bleecker 
and  appointing  the  brother-in-law  of  Mr.  Kelley.  It  has  utterly  failed, 
and  the  parties  concerned  in  it  stand  in  a  worse  condition  than  the  party 
assailed.  I  may  take  occasion  hereafter  to  enclose  you  extracts  of  the 
testimony  taken  in  this  matter.  I  deem  it  to  be  my  duty,  in  addressing 
you  officially,  to  do  so  with  frankness  and  candor,  withholding  nothing 
and  asserting  nothing  which  cannot  be  demonstrated  by  proof.  On  our 
arrival  in  this  city,  it  very  soon  became  evident  that  we  were  unwelcome 
visiters  to  Mr.  Curtis.  The  objects  of  the  new  commission  were  ridiculed 
in  a  print  supposed  to  be  friendly  to  the  administration  of  President  Ty- 
ler, which  has  been  followed  up  by  other  articles  abusive  of  the  commis- 
sioners. These  articles  bear  the  ear  mark  of  Edward  Curtis ;  and  the  facts 
and  circumstances  referred  to  in  them  could  have  been  known  only  to  the 
collector,  or  some  one  attached  to  the  commission.  It  appeared  somewhat 
strange  that  a  commission,  instituted  by  the  President,  should  be  ridiculed 
and  abused  by  the  Herald,  while  it  professes  to  enter  heartily  into  the  sup- 
port of  President  Tyler.  There  is  an  incongruity  in  the  circumstance, 
which  can  be  accounted  for  only  by  tracing  it  to  the  influence  and  solicita- 
tion of  the  collector  himself,  who  manifested  great  uneasiness  as  to  his  own 
position,  if  our  investigations  were  pushed  into  his  own  conduct  as  collect- 
or. His  first  effort  was  made  against  a  gentleman  who  has  been  extreme- 
ly useful  to  us,  both  in  the  former  and  present  commission.  He  brought 
all  his  friends  to  operate  on  Mr.  Bradley,  to  get  this  gentleman  removed 
from  the  commissioners'  room.  Any  attempt  on  me  was  deemed  hopeless, 
as  1  had  witnessed  the  value  of  Mr.  Dwight's  services,  the  person  alluded 
to  ;  and  similar  attempts  had  been  made,  during  the  past  summer,  to  pre- 
judice me  against  him,  without  effect.    The  fact  is,  Mr.  Dwight  knows  too 


268 


Rep.  No.  669. 


much  about  the  custom-house  and  its  officers  not  to  be  dreaded  by  the 
present  collector.  He  brought  the  subject  distinctly  before  the  commis- 
sioners, who  sustained  Mr.  Dwight  in  the  position  he  occupied  with  the 
commissioners.  It  became  necessary  that  he  should,  in  some  form  oil 
other,  operate  on  you,  and  procure  the  removal  of  Mr.  Dvvight  from  the 
commissioners'  room,  either  by  your  express  order  or  by  denying  him  a 
reasonable  compensation  for  his  services.  What  steps  he  may  have  taken 
to  produce  this  result,  which  he  so  much  desires,  you  are  better  informed 
than  myself ;  but,  on  yesterday,  he  wrote  a  note  to  the  commissioners,  in-! 
forming  them  that  the  allowance,  by  the  former  board,  of  Mr.  Dwight's  ac- 
count had  been  rejected  at  the  Treasury.  If  this  be  a  fact,  I  am  sure  it 
must  have  been  done  without  full  information  of  the  acts  of  the  former 
commissioners,  and  of  the  authority  on  which  they  acted.  Mr.  Kelley  in- 
formed me  that  Mr.  Ewing  had  particularly  requested  him  to  seek  out  Mr. 
D wight  immediately  on  his  arrival  in  New  York,  and,  if  possible,  engage 
his  services  in  some  form  or  other,  to  aid  the  commissioners  in  their  in- 
vestigations. Accordingly,  Mr.  Kelley,  without  consulting  me,  sent  for  Mr. 
Dvvight  and  employed  him.  I  had  no  knowledge,  at  that  time,  of  this  gen- 
tleman, nor  of  the  extensive  information  he  possessed  in  custom  house 
matters.  I,  however,  very  soon  found  that  his  services  could  not  well  be 
dispensed  with  ;  in  fact,  the  commissioners  would  have  been  entirely  afc 
fault  in  searching  out  evidence  of  frauds  and  malpractices  in  the  custom- 
house, but  for  the  aid  which  they  received  from  Mr.  Dvvight.  I  was  there- 
fore highly  gratified  that  Mr.  Kelley,  in  complying  with  the  wishes  of  the 
late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  had  engaged  him  to  give  us  his  valuable 
assistance  in  the  discharge  of  our  duties.  When  we  adjour  ned,  Mr.  D wight 
applied  to  me  to  sanction  his  account  ;  which  I  refused,  on  theground  that 
he  had  been  employed  by  Mr.  Kelley  without  my  participation,  and  that 
Mr.  Kelley  was  the  proper  person  to  settle  his  compensation.  This  was* 
done  by  an  interview  between  Mr.  Dvvight,  Mr.  Kelley,  and  the  collect- 
or, and  I  then  gave  my  signature  of  approval  to  his  account,  which  wa» 
promptly  paid  by  the  collector,  as  a  part  of  our  contingent  expenses.  This 
allowance  was  approved  by  Mr.  Ewing,  and  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be< 
an  open  question  ;  nor  has  Mr.  Dwight  any  connexion,  individually,  with 
the  collector  or  the  Treasury  Department.  This  charge  was  made  against 
the  commissioners,  for  services  which  they  acknowledged,  and  its  payment 
by  the  collector  would  seem  to  close  the  transaction. 

I  make  this  statement  that  you  may  clearly  understand  the  matter,  and 
act  on  it  according  to  your  sense  of  justice  and  of  official  duty.  I  be# 
leave  to  add  one  single  remark  further.  If  Mr.  Curtis  succeeds  in  expel- 
ling Mr.  Dwight  from  the  commissioners'  room,  he  will  have  effected  alii 
that  he  desires  for  his  own  security,  and  it  will  be  in  his  power  to  baffle 
the  commissioners  at  every  step  of  their  investigations  into  his  acts  as  col- 
lector. He  would  be  glad  to  dissolve  the  commission  if  in  his  power,  but 
he  would  certainly  be  greatly  relieved  if,  in  any  manner,  he  could  dissolve 
the  connexion  between  Mr.  Dwight  and  the  board. 

I  suggest,  for  your  consideration,  the  propriety  of  corresponding  direct- 
ly with  the  commissioners  on  subjects  relating  to  their  duties,  or  the  limi- 
tation which  you  may  deem  it  proper  to  place  on  their  expenditures.  The 
collector  is  under  our  examination,  and,  to  answer  his  own  purposes,  he 
may  make  representations  to  you,  for  your  government,  which,  when  dis- 
closed, would  by  no  means  correspond  with  the  views  of  the  commission- 


Uep.  No.  669. 


269 


ers.  Permit  me  to  say,  that  I  have  the  fullest  confidence  that,  when  pro- 
perly informed,  you  will  faithfully  discharge  your  duties  to  the  commis- 
sioners, to  the  Government,  and  to  the  country. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEO.  POINDEXTER. 
Hon.  Walter  Forward,  ^ 
Secretary  oj  the  Treasury. 


George  Poindexter  to  the  President. 

New  York,  November  13,  1841. 

My  Dear  Sir:  I  should  have  done  myself  the  honorof  addressing  you,, 
at  Williamsburg,  on  the  subject  of  our  investigations  into  the  affairs  of  this 
custom-house,  but  I  feared  my  communications  might  draw  your  attention 
to  matters  of  minor  consideration,  while  you  were  employed  in  the  more 
important  concerns  of  the  nation  over  whose  destinies  you  preside.  Under- 
standing you  were  to  reach  Washington  on  yesterday,  I  deem  it  proper  to 
put  you  in  possession  of  the  progr  ess  which  the  commissioners  have  made, 
and  are  making,  in  the  discharge  of  the  objects  of  their  commission. 

I  informed  Mr.  Forward,  by  a  letter  from  Philadelphia,  of  the  probable 
difficulties  which  might  arise  in  obtaining  the  testimony  of  custom-house 
officers,  if  they  were  not  fully  assured  that  they  would  be  piotected  Irom 
removal  by  the  collector  All  the  anticipations  expressed  in  that  letter 
have  been  fully  seen  and  felt,  and,  I  fear,  will  prevent  a  satisfactory  de- 
velopment of  the  action  of  Mr.  Curtis,  who  manifests  great  anxiety  to  get 
rid  of  the  commission,  and  so  dicipline  the  officers  under  his  control  as 
to  prevent  any  disclosures  which  might  implicate  the  purity  of  his  official 
conduct.  I  give  it  to  you  as  my  decided  opinion,  that  the  official  letters 
of  Mr.  Curtis  to  the  Treasury  Department  cannot  be  relied  on,  and  ought 
not  to  be  made  the  foundation  of  any  action  at  that  Department,  so  far  as 
this  commission  is  concerned,  until  the  commissioners  are  consulted  and 
their  views  taken  in  relation  to  such  communications.  Immediately  on 
our  arrival  in  this  city,  certain  articles  appeared  in  a  newspaper,  regarded 
as  friendly  to  your  administration,  evidently  written  or  dictated  by  Mr. 
Curtis,  deprecating  the  return  of  the  commissioners,  and  endeavoring  to 
throw  into  ridicule  the  efforts  which  we  might  make  to  elicit  testimony  in 
relation  to  the  fraudulent  practices  which  have  existed,  and  which  do  now 
exist,  in  the  custom-house.  Mr.  Curtis  exhibits  great  uneasiness  for  his 
own  safety,  whether  with  or  without  cause  we  are  not  yet  sufficiently  in- 
formed, but  it  is  evident  that  he  dreads  a  full  and  fair  investigation  into 
his  own  conduct  as  collector.  He  is  particularly  anxious  to  deprive  us  of 
the  aid  and  assistance  of  Mr.  George  A.  Dwight,  whom  he  dreads,  be- 
cause he  has  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of  the  sources  from  which  testi- 
mony may  be  drawn,  and  of  the  secret  movements  of  the  collector  and  his 
adjuncts,  than  any  other  man  in  the  city  of  New  York  ;  and  I  candidly  ad- 
mit that,  without  his  assistance,  the  commission  would  make  but  poor 
progress  in  their  investigations.  He  tried  it  with  the  commissioners,  and 
failed.  He  then  enlisted  the  influence  of  Mr.  Webster,  which  was  to  be 
used  on  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in  his  transit  through  this  city  ; 
but  the  Secretary  did  not  remain  long  enough  with  us  to  be  assailed  from. 


270 


Eep.  ISTo.  669. 


that  quarter.  I  understood  that,  to  accomplish  his  object  by  secret  means, 
he  has  written  to  some  officer  in  the  Department,  but  to  whom  I  am  yet 
uninformed,  to  disallow  the  compensation  paid  to  Mr.  Dwight  for  his  ser- 
vices by  the  former  board  of  commissioners,  and  to  deny  him  any  com- 
pensation for  the  services  he  is  now  rendering  to  the  commission,  and 
which  cannot  be  dispensed  with.  I  am  informed,  though  I  do  not  know 
the  fact,  that  he  has  succeeded  in  carrying  out  his  views  in  relation  to  Mr. 
Dwight,  and  has  received  instructions  according  to  his  wishes  from  Wash- 
ington. If  this  be  a  fact,  I  regret  it,  because  it  will  at  once  baffle  all  our 
efforts  to  expose  any  errors  which  he  may  have  committed,  or  any  frauds 
he  may  have  practised  since  he  became  collector  of  this  port.  I  draw 
your  attention  to  this  matter  as  one  deeply  affecting  the  success  of  our  in- 
vestigations. We  have  to  contend  against  the  arts  and  intrigues  of  the 
collector,  who  has  under  his  control  a  disciplined  corps  of  officers,  who 
are  in  terror  of  his  power,  if  they  should  testify  against  him.  Some  of 
these  officers,  and  those  who  possess  the  best  means  and  opportunities  of 
the  most  accurate  knowledge  of  the  official  acts  of  Mr.  Curtis,  are  among 
the  most  corrupt  old  officers  employed  by  Jesse  Hoyt,  the  late  collector, 
who  are  now  continued  in  office,  notwithstanding  the  collector  admits  they 
have  been  guilty  of  acts  of  corruption,  of  which  we  have  proof  in  the  jour- 
nal of  evidence  taken  by  us.  We  know  that  witnesses  ate  advised  that 
we  have  no  power  to  coerce  their  attendance,  and  many  of  them  have 
refused  to  attend  and  give  testimony.  Others  wrho  belong  to  the  custom- 
house dare  not  refuse  to  attend,  but  in  giving  their  testimony  it  is  almost 
impossible  to  get  the  truth  out  of  them.  Thus  situated,  we  need  the  sup- 
port of  your  power,  through  the  Treasury  Department,  to  enable  us  to 
proceed  in  the  discharge  of  our  duties  with  any  sort  of  effect.  I  have 
given  you  this  candid  statement,  that  you  may  either  bring  the  commission 
to  a  close,  or  leave  the  commissioners  at  full  liberty  to  conduct  the  inves- 
tigation according  to  their  own  convictions  of  what  is  necessary  to  be  done 
for  the  public  interests.  If  we  are  interfered  with  by  the  Treasury  De- 
partment, at  *the  instance  of  Mr.  Curtis,  it  would  be  infinitely  better  to 
dissolve  the  commission. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  friend  and  obedient 
servant 

GEO.  POINDEXTER. 

To  the  President. 


Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  George  Poindexter. 

Washington,  November  15,  1841. 

My  Dear  Sir:  The  leading  inducement  to  my  late  journey  was  fresh 
air  and  exercise.  The  confinement,  and  most  vexatious  cares,  to  which 
I  had  been  subjected  for  six  weeks,  made  it  necessary  to  indulge  in  a  short 
respite.  On  my  arrival  in  New  York  I  sent  for  Mr.  Curtis,  and  requested 
him  to  afford  every  facility  to  the  commissioners  in  their  researches,  which 
he  assured  me  would  be  done. 

It  was  my  intention  to  remain  a  day  or  two  in  New  York  on  my  return 
homewards ;  but  the  weather  was  threatening.  I  had  been  tossed  on  the 
sound  till  I  was  sick,  and  having  no  business,  and  knowing  the  pressure 


Rep.  No.  669. 


271 


here,  I  hurried  to  my  duties.  'My  detention  at  New  York  would  have  an- 
swered no  valuable  purpose,  and  might  have  involved  me  in  troublesome 
difficulties,  among  the  conflicting  parties.  I  had,  moreover,  entire  confi- 
dence in  the  commissioners,  and  entertained  no  doubt  they  would  prose- 
cute their  trust  impartially  and  firmly.    This  confidence  has  no  abatement. 

The  course  of  the  Department  in  relation  to  Mr.  Dwight's  account  has 
been  misunderstood.  There  were  obvious  reasons,  which  will  strike  you 
at  once,  lor  making  the  second  commission  a  real  extension  of  the  first, 
and  bringing  its  regulations,  prescribed  by  the  late  Secretay.  The  charge 
of  Mr.  D wight  was  not  embraced  in  the  terms  of  that  regulation;  and,  be- 
ing myself  ignorant  of  the  nature  ol  the  services  rendered,  it  was  sus- 
pended for  further  inquiry.  Finding  it  to  be  one  of  those  incidental  ex- 
penses necessarily  incurred  in  the  execution  of  the  commission,  Mr.  Cur- 
tis has  been  since  advised  that  it  would  be  allowed.  A  like  charge,  in- 
curred in  carrying  out  the  investigation  now  in  progress,  will  be  deemed 
proper.  1  beg  you  to  be  assured  that  no  doubt  is  entertained  by  me  of 
the  judgment  or  discretion  of  the  commissioners  in  this  regard. 

A  complainthas  been  made,  that  Mr.  Cuttis  had  been,  or  would  be,  de- 
nied the  privilege  of  confronting  and  cross-examining  the  witnesses  brought 
to  impeach  his  official  conduct.  My  wish  and  expectation  is,  that  the  in- 
vestigation should,  as  far  as  practicable,  take  the  shape  of  a  judicial  in- 
quiry, and  that  the  usual  privilege  should  be  afforded  to  the  parties  whose 
conduct  may  be  brought  in  question.  In  saying  this,  I  do  not  mean  to  im- 
ply that  you  are  supposed  by  me  to  be  disinclined  to  this  course,  but  to 
apprize  you  of  the  fears  of  Mr.  Curtis.  Any  attempts,  by  him  or  others 
in  the  public  service,  to  deter  clerks  in  the  custom-house  from  disclosing 
malpractices,  or  rendering  all  proper  assistance  in  bringing  them  to  light, 
will  meet  the  proper  animadversion  from  the  President ;  and  with  regard 
to  their  fears  of  being  removed  by  the  collector,  for  acting  uprightly  and 
frankly  in  their  intercourse  with  the  commissioners,  the  President  will  as- 
suredly protect  them  from  any  tyranny  of  that  sort.  The  facts  communi- 
cated to  the  President,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Bleecker,  are  not  distinctly 
knowrn  to  me  ;  but  he  has  reasons  for  deferring  any  action  upon  it  at  pres- 
ent, which  are  satisfactory  to  himself,  and  would  probably  be  so  to  you,  if 
known. 

It  is  proper  that  I  should  mention  to  you  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Pres- 
dent,  the  object  of  the  commission  is  to  explore  the  transactions  of  the 
custom-house  under  former  collectors,  and,  if  abuses  existed,  to  ascertain 
what  steps  have  been  taken  to  correct  them  ;  that,  should  any  wrong  spring 
up  under  the  present  collector,  it  can  be  examined  hereafter. 

The  President  is  very  desirous  that  the  labors  of  the  commission  should 
be  brought  to  a  close  as  soon  as  can  well  be  done,  in  order  that  we  may 
have  an  opportunity  of  looking  into  their  report,  before  the  meeting  of 
Congress. 

I  am,  with  great  respect,  yours,  &c. 

WALTER  FORWARD. 


George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

City  Hotel,  New  York,  November  20,  1841. 
Dear  Sir:  Your  communication  dated  at  Washington.  15th  instant,  is 
received. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


I  was  under  the  impression  that  one  of  tfye  chief  objects  to  be  attained 
by  the  renewed  examination  into  the  affairs  oi  the  custom-house  was  to 
discover  what  modifications,  if  any ,  had  been  made  by  the  present  collect  - 
or  in  the  former  practices,  as  they  existed  under  Hoyt  and  Swartwout, 
and,  by  comparing  the  present  with  the  past,  to  arrive  at  proper  conclu- 
sions in  respect  to  the  reforms  deemed  necessary  for  the  collection,  dis- 
bursement, and  security  of  the  public  revenue  collected  at  this  port,  fall- 
in"  within  the  range  of  the  powers  vested  by  law  in  the  Treasury  De- 
partment. But  you  inform  me  that,  "  in  the  opinion  of  the  President, 
the  object  of  the  commission  is,  to  explore  the  transactions  of  the  custom- 
house under  former  collectors,  and,  if  abuses  existed,  to  ascertain  what 
steps  had  been  taken  to  correct  them  ;  that,  should  any  errors  spring  up 
under  (he  present  collector,  they  can  be  examined  hereafter."  If  it  is  the 
intention  of  the  President  to  place  this  limitation  on  the  action  of  the 
commissioners,  our  investigations  will  end  in  nothing  more  than  an  expo- 
sure of  past  transactions  in  the  custom  house,  which  may,  and  certainly 
ought  to  be,  condemned,  both  by  the  Government  and  people  of  the  United 
States.  But  the  injury  which  has  been  inflicted  by  former  collectors  on 
the  public  interests  and  the  moral  character  of  the  country  is  without 
remedy  ;  and  therefore,  unless  we  are  peimitted  to  scrutinize  the  present 
practices  prevailing  at  the  custom-house,  and  the  acts  of  the  present  col- 
lector, so  as  to  compare  them  with  former  practices,  we  cannot  reach  the 
evils,  or  apply  the  remedy  which  would  correct  them. 

I  have  already,  on  several  occasions,  made  known  to  you  my  opinions 
in  relation  to  the  influences  which  would  operate  to  prevent  the  subordi- 
nate custom-house  officers  from  giving  testimony  which  might  implicate 
the  conduct  of  the  collector.  That  these  influences  do  operate  cannot 
be  doubted.  On  yesterday,  the  cashier  of  the  custom-house,  in  a  man- 
ner the  most  insulting  to  the  commissioners,  refused  to  answer  interroga- 
tories propounded  to  him,  and  made  a  peremptory  demand  for  copies  of 
papers,  which  could  not  have  been  given  him  without  a  violation  of  our 
instructions  from  the  late  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  of  the  uniform 
practice  of  the  board.  In  fact,  we  could  obtain  no  evidence  from  him, 
where  the  questions  related  to  the  conduct  of  the  collector,  or  to  his  own 
office,  as  cashier.    So  the  matter  rests. 

Again:  in  order  to  facilitate  our  investigations,  we  made  a  request  of  the 
collector  to  furnish  us,  for  our  examination,  with  the  original  vouchers, 
covering  certain  large  items  in  his  cash  transactions,  with  which  the  Gov- 
ernment is  debited.  He  caused  the  auditor,  Mr.  Fleming,  to  write  him  a 
letter,  refusing  these  original  vouchers,  and  assigning  his  reasons  for  not 
complying  with  the  order  of  the  commissioners. 

In  reply  to  a  second  order,  in  which  the  commissioners  refer  the  collector 
to  the  words  of  the  act  of  1799,  which  makes  it  the  duty  of  the  collector  to 
-exhibit  to  such  person  or  persons  as  the  President  may  appoint  for  that 
purpose  all  the  books  papers  and  accounts  of  the  custom-house,  he  at- 
tempts an  apology  for  sending  us  the  letter  of  the  auditor,  begs  us  to  re- 
turn it,  and  promises,  in  future,  to  give  us  free  access  to  any  original  docu- 
ment which  we  may  desire  to  inspect.  It  is  evident  that  the  letter  of  the 
auditor  was  intended  to  prevent  all  similar  calls  in  future,  but  finding  the 
law  imperative  on  him,  he  resorts  to  the  expedient  of  casting  the  blame  on 
the  auditor,  acknowledges  that  the  letter  ought  not  to  have  been  sent,  and 


Rep.  No.  669. 


snakes  a  request  that  it  be  returned  to  him,  which  request  we  have  de- 
clined to  comply  with. 

I  mention  these  facts  to  bring  to  your  view  the  difficulties  which  we  have 
to  encounter  in  any  attempt  which  we  may  make  to  obtain  evidence 
from  the  custom-house  officers,  having  the  slighest  bearing  on  the  official 
conduct  of  the  collector.  You  inform  me,  in  speaking  of  these  officers,  that 
the  "  President  will  assuredly  protect  them  from  any  tyranny  of  that  sort,"" 
(removal,)  the  facts  being  established  to  show  threats  from  the  collector 
to  prevent  u  disclosures  of  malpratices  falling  within  their  knowledge." 

You  will  at  once  perceive  the  impossibility  of  arriving  at  any  conclu- 
sion, on  a  subject  in  which  both  the  collector  and  his  officers  are  interested, 
through  any  other  channel  than  the  cautious  manner  in  which  these  officers 
testify  before  us,  and  their  refusal,  as  in  the  case  of  the  cashier,  to  answer 
interrogatories  when  the  answers  might  implicate  the  collector.  Any  as- 
surance which  we  might  give  them  of  protection  would  not  weigh  a  feather 
against  the  terrors  of  the  power  which  the  collector  holds  over  them,  with 
the  case  of  Bleecker  before  them. 

If,  as  you  inform  me,  the  President  is  in  possession  of  reasons  for  defer- 
ring any  action  on  this  case  at  present,  which  are  satisfactory  to  himself, 
and  would  probably  be  so  to  me,  if  known,  I  deeply  r  egret  that  the  com- 
missioners are  not  in  possession  of  the  charges  which  have  thus  operated 
to  suspend  the  action  of  the  President,  because  I  take  it  upon  myself  to  say, 
from  a  full  knowledge  of  all  the  proceedings  of  the  collector  in  relation  to 
Mr.  Bleecker,  that  all  such  charges,  be  they  what  they  may,  will  turn  out 
to  be  fabrications  utterly  unfounded  in  fact,  and  so  the  President  will  find 
it  in  the  end. 

If  the  charges  had  been  made  known  to  us,  we  could  have  elicited  the 
evidence  on  the  subject,  and  left  no  doubt,  either  of  their  truth  or  false- 
hood, and  thus  place  the  matter  at  rest  one  way  or  the  other. 

I  beg  leave  to  recall  to  your  recollection  a  former  communication  of  mine, 
in  which  I  state  to  you  that  little  or  no  confidence  ought  to  be  placed  in  any 
statements  made  by  Mr.  Curtis  to  your  Department,  in  relation  to  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  commissioners.  On  yesterday,  Mr.  Curtis  sent  to  us  the 
copy  of  a  letter  addressed  by  him  to  you,  in  which  is  the  following 
sentence  : 

"  I  learned  yesterday,  before  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Bradley,  that  a  witness, 
P.  V.  Remsen,  a  clerk,  whom  I  dismissed  in  the  month  of  July  last,  had 
been  called  before  the  commissioners.  I  called  upon  the  commissioners, 
and  found  that  he  had  testified  to  a  copy  of  a  letter  produced  to  him  by 
Governor  Poindexter,  the  original  of  which,  the  witness  stated,  he  had 
written  to  Mr.  Morehead,  of  the  Senate,  in  August  last,  whilst  my  nomi- 
nation before  the  Senate  was  pending." 

The  object  of  Mr.  Curtis  in  making  this  statement  to  you  was  to  make 
tne  impression  that  I  had  called  this  witness  to  testify  to  the  copy  of  a  let- 
ter referred  to  in  my  possession,  which  I  11  produced"  to  the  witness  to 
verify  the  charge  contained  in  it.  He  knew  this  statement  to  be  false  at 
the  time  he  made  it,  because  he  had  examined  the  testimony  of  the  wit- 
ness, in  which  he  states  explicitly  that  he  handed  in  the  paper  Jiimself  to 
the  commissioners.  The  facts  involved  in  this  communication  of  Mr. 
Curtis  are  singular  beyond  any  thing  of  the  kind  which  I  have  ever  wit- 
nsesed. 

On  the  16th  of  November,  a  witness  testifies  before  the  commissioners 


274  Rep.  No.  669. 

on  a  subject  implicating  the  moral  character  of  the  collector.  On  the  same 
day  Mr.  Curtis,  before  the  witness  had  departed,  carefully  examined  his 
testimony,  in  which  is  contained  an  answer  setting  forth  that  the  paper 
presented  by  the  witness  was  a  true  copy  of  an  original  letter  written  by  him 
to  Mr.  Morehead,  of  the  Senate,  and  that  it  contained  the  truth,  the  whole 
truth,  and  all  he  knew  on  the  subject  to  which  it  related.  On  the  day 
following,  (the  17th  of  November,)  Mr.  Curtis  informs  you  that  I  had 
"produced"  this  copy  of  the  letter  to  the  witness,  to  which  he  testified. 
On  the  day  following,  Mr.  Curtis  presented  himself  for  examination,  in 
relation  to  this  same  letter,  and  testifies,  under  oath,  that  the  copy  of  the 
letter  was  furnished  to  the  commissioners  by  Mr.  Remsen  himself.  Com- 
ment on  such  perversions  of  the  truth,  by  a  high  and  responsible  officer 
of  the  Government,  would  be  superfluous.  He  writes  on  one  day  what 
he  swears  to  be  false  on  another,  and  which  he  knew  to  be  false  at  the 
time  he  wrote  it.  If  such  a  man  is  worthy  of  the  confidence  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  collect  two-thirds  of  its  revenue,  then  I  can  only  say  that  we 
may  look  out  for  another  Swartwout  or  Hoyt  concern. 

1  annex  an  extract  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Curtis,  in  which  he  states 
explicitly  that  the  copy  of  the  letter  was  furnished  to  the  commissioners 
by  Remsen  himself. 

Extract  from  the  testimony  of  Edward  Curtis,  sivcrn  to  Nov.  18,  1841. 


u  I  had  been  previously  furnished  with  a  copy  of  Mr.  Remsen's  letter, 
by  Mr.  Remsen  himself.  That  copy  is  now  in  my  possession,  but  does  not 
agree  exactly  with  the  copy  furnished  to  the  commissioners  by  him." 

The  commissioners  will,  in  all  probability,  communicate  to  you  the  whole 
of  these  proceedings  in  a  few  days. 

We  have  discovered,  in  the  course  of  our  investigations,  that  the  extrav- 
agant bills  for  stationery,  books,  and  pens,  are  the  same  under  Mr.  Curtis 
as  they  were  under  Hoyt,  except  in  the  departments  of  the  custom-house 
over  which  he  has  no  control. 

On  the  subject  of  the  iron  railing,  and  other  iron  work  done  in  the  new 
custom-house,  we  called  lor  information  of  the  contract  or  contracts,  and 
the  items  of  these  expenditures,  more  than  ten  days  past,  but  no  report 
has  been  made  to  us  by  Mr.  Curtis.  Whether  we  shall  receive  one  or 
not  before  our  adjournment  is  uncertain. 

If  it  is  the  desire  of  the  President  that  we  should  adjourn  without  ex- 
amining strictly  into  the  errors  of  Mr.  Curtis,  we  shall  probably  close  our 
examination  on  Saturday  next.  And  my  report  on  the  past  and  present 
commission  will  be  made  as  early  as  practicable  after  the  meeting  of  Con- 
gress in  December  next.  To  make  it  at  an  earlier  day  would-be  to  do 
injustice  both  to  myself  and  the  President,  who  has  confided  this  delicate 
and  disagreeable  duty  to  me. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  most  obedient  servant, 

GEO.  POINDEXTER. 


Treasury  Department,  November  20,  1841. 
Gentlemen:  After  considering  the  subject  of  your  letter  of  the  17th 


Rep.  No.  669. 


275 


instant,  with  all  the  concern  that  is  due  to  the  interests  of  the  Government, 
I  am  unable  to  persuade  myself  that  the  request  of  Mr.  Curtis,  to  which 
you  refer,  is,  in  the  main,  unreasonable.  With  regard  to  his  claim  to  be 
formally  advised,  beforehand,  of  the  charges  to  be  inquired  into,  if  such  be 
the  purport  of  what  I  find  in  his  letter  to  you,  it  does  not  strike  me  as  en- 
titled to  much  weight  ;  nor  can  there  be  any  objection  to  receiving  com- 
plaints against  him  in  his  absence,  whether  supported  by  affidavits  or  not. 
It  maybe  further  observed,  that  the  disclosure  of  trivial  delinquencies,  that 
do  not  seriously  affect  his  reputation  as  an  officer,  ought  not  to  be  consid- 
ered a  ground  for  arresting  the  examination  of  witnesses  until  he  can  be 
sent  for  "and  appear.  But  when  charges  are  made,  or  facts  brought  unex- 
pectedly to  light  by  witnesses,  which,  if  true,  would  justify  his  removal 
from  office,  I  think  it  but  fair  that  he  should  be  afforded  the  opportunity 
of  being  present,  and  have  the  privilege  of  cross-examination.  The  re- 
marks submitted  are  meant,  of  course,  to  apply  exclusively  to  the  instan- 
ces last  mentioned. 

Now,  it  is  true  that  the  inquiry  has  been  directed  for  the  information 
of  the  Government,  and  with  a  view  to  a  reform  in  the  business  and  prac- 
tice of  the  custom-house.  In  this  respect  Mr.  Curtis  may  be  said  to  be  a 
stranger  to  the  proceedings.  But  when  the  investigation  is  made  to  bear 
upon  his  character  as  a  man  and  an  officer,  he  is  necessarily  a  party  to  it, 
for  the  plain  leasons  that  the  reform,  if  any,  that  is  expected  to  follow, 
will  be  his  expulsion  from  office.  Charges  of  suspicion,  gross  negligence, 
corruption,  or  any  thing  else,  which,  if  veiified  by  proof,  would  lead  to 
this  result,  cannot,  in  my  opinion,  be  treated  as  matters  in  which  he  would 
have  no  just  claim  to  be  heard. 

If  he  had  ceased  to  be  an  officer,  and  the  effect  of  the  investigation 
were  limited  to  the  correction  of  abuses  in  the  custom-house,  without  in- 
flicting a  heavy  personal  grievance  upon  himself,  a  less  indulgent  course 
might  be  proper.  But  he  is  in  office.  The  real  question  at  issue  in  the  in- 
quiry may  turn  out  to  be,  whether  he  shall  be  allowed  to  remain  there,  or 
give  place  to  some  one  else. 

Tn  this  aspect  of  the  matter,  and  under  the  limitations  mentioned,  it  would 
seem  to  me  that  it  comports  with  the  equity  as  well  as  the  credit  of  the 
Government  to  grant  his  request.  The  exercise  of  the  privilege  claimed 
will  be  under  the  authority  and  supervision  of  the  commissioners;  and  it  is 
not  perceived  that  the  evils  likely  to  result  from  it  are  such  as  to  recom- 
mend its  denial. 

I  am,  gentlemen,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  FORWARD. 

Hon.  Geo.  Poindexter, 
Wm.  M.  Steuart,  Esq., 
Wm.  A.  Bradley,  Esq. 


From  George  Poindexter  to  the  President. 

New  York,  November  22,  184K 
My  Dear  Sir  :  The  instructions  communicated  by  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  under  date  of  the  20th  instant,  extending  the  privilege  to  Mr. 
Curtis  to  be  present  at  our  examinations  of  witnesses  touching  his  official 
6* 


Hep.  No.  669. 


conduct,  and  cross-examine  the  witnesses,  imposes  on  me  the  disagreeable 
necessity  of  requesting  that  if,  in  your  opinion,  a  third  commissioner  is 
required  in  the  future  investigations  of  the  board,  you  will  make  the  ap- 
pointment as  soon  as  your  convenience  will  permit. 

I  shall  retire  from  the  board  from  and  after  this  day.  It  will  require  a 
week  to  make  out  a  report  of  the  evidence  heretofore  taken,  and  close 
my  connexion  with  this  unpleasant  investigation.  I  might  add  many  facts 
and  circumstances  relating  to  the  means  employed,  both  here  and  at  Wash- 
ington, to  embarrass  our  proceedings,  from  the  moment  we  reached  this 
city;  but  it  would  result  in  nothing  useful  to  yourself  or  to  the  country 
at  this  time. 

This  right,  allowed  to  one  custom-house  officer,  which  has  been  denied 
by  authority  to  all  others,  would  effectually  nullify  all  our  antecedent 
proceedings,  and  subject  the  commission  to  ridicule,  by  those  who  would 
have  an  equal  claim  to  that  indulgence,  to  which  no  sufficient  answer  could 
be  given.  There  are  numerous  custom-house  officers  whose  conduct  we 
have  had  occasion  to  investigate  ;  they  have  asked,  and  in  some  instances 
demanded,  to  be  present  and  cross-examine  the  witnesses.  They  have 
been  told  that  our  instructions,  and  the  nature  of  our  commission,  forbid  a 
compliance  with  such  a  request  or  demand.  If  a  new  rule  is  to  be  estab- 
lished, it  must  be  carried  out  by  a  new  agent,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned. 

Having  no  personal  interest  or  feeling  on  the  subjects  embraced  in  this 
commission,  whatever  may  be  my  opinion  of  the  interest  which  the  Gov- 
ern merit  and  people  have  in  its  results,  I  make  no  complaint  of  this  change 
in  the  manner  of  conducting  our  investigations,  but  desire  only  to  be  re- 
lieved from  a  participation  in  both  systems,  which  are  incompatible  with 
each  other.  So  soon  as  my  report  is  completed,  I  shall  return  and  deliver 
it  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

With  my  best  wishes  for  your  successful  administration  of  the  Govern- 
ment, I  remain,  with  great  respect,  your  friend  and  obedient  servant. 

GEO.  POINDEXTER. 


George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

City  Hotel,  New  York,  November  24,  1841. 
Sir:  On  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  I  had  no  alter- 
native left  me  but  to  withdraw  from  the  commissioners'  room.  This  step 
was  not  taken  from  any  objection  to  receive  and  obey  instructions  from  your 
Department,  because  it  is  my  duty  to  do  so  under  my  commission,  nor 
from  the  slightest  disrespect,  either  to  the  Department  or  the  President ; 
but  I  had  acted  on  the  former  commission  under  special  instructions  of  the 
late  Secretary,  and  had  taken  a  volume  of  testimony  implicating  the  con- 
duct of  officers  of  the  customs  of  every  grade,  as  well  those  who 
had  formerly  been  in  office  as  those  holding  office  at  the  time,  none  of 
whom  had  been  permitted  to  appear  before  the  commissioners  and  cross- 
examine  the  witnesses,  which  was  positively  prohibited  in  our  corres- 
pondence with  Mr.  Ewing,  on  file  in  your  office.  On  the  testimony  so 
taken,  I  had  commenced  my  report,  and  was  continuing  to  close  my  duties 
as  a  commissioner  with  that  document,  when  I  am  instructed,  in  respect 
to  a  single  officer  in  the  custom-house,  to  extend  to  him  the  privilege  of 


Bep.  No.  669. 


277 


appearing  in  person  before  us  and  cross-examine  any  witness  who  might 
testify  to  any  fact  relating  to  his  official  conduct.  Had  this  been  the 
original  rule  prescribed  to  the  commissioners,  I  certainly  could  have  had 
no  possible  objection  to  its  execution,  but  it  must  at  once  strike  you  that 
I  could  not,  with  any  degree  of  consistency,  condemn  officers  in  my  re- 
port, against  whose  official  acts  we  had  taken  testimony,  such  officers  hav- 
ing been  denied  the  privilege  of  cross-examination,  and  then  turn  round 
and  say  to  another  officer  of  the  customs,  you,  sir,  shall  be  made  an  ex- 
ception to  the  rule  ;  and  thereby  furnish  to  the  officers  who  have  been  re- 
moved in  consequence  of  our  previous  investigations,  and  such  as  remain 
in  office,  whose  conduct  I  shall  be  compelled  to  censure,  the  strong 
ground  of  objection  to  our  proceedings,  that  they  had  been  condemned 
unheard,  while  a  more  highly  favored  officer  had  been  allowed  the  very 
privilege  which  they  had  demanded,  and  which  had  been  uniformly  de- 
nied to  them. 

I  enclose  to  you  a  copy  of  the  letter  of  Mr.  Kelley  and  myself  to  Mr. 
Ewing,  dated  the  25th  of  May  last,  in  which  we  explicitly  ask  instruc- 
tions on  this  very  point  of  rebutting  testimonjT  and  cross-examinations. 
The  reply  of  the  Secretary  was  full  on  that  subject,  but  it  has  been  ab- 
stracted from  our  files  by  some  person  having  access  to  them,  which 
obliges  me  to  ask  the  favor  of  you  to  forward  a  copy  to  me  with  as  little 
delay  as  practicable. 

The  course  taken  by  Mr.  Curtis  in  regard  tcmyself,  which  was  wholly 
unprovoked  by  me,  for  on  all  occasions,  whatever  may  be  my  opinion  of 
his  official  integrity  or  moral  honesty,  has  been  impartial  and  cautious> 
leaves  me  no  ground  to  doubt  that  his  communications,  both  to  yourself 
and  to  the  President,  will  convey  information  wholly  unfounded  in  fact, 
plausible  but  deceptive  ;  and,  unless  proper  caution  is  observed  in  the 
estimate  which  may  be  placed  on  these  communications,  I  may  have 
reason  to  repent  that  I  ever  consented  to  return  and  complete  the  exam- 
inations in  which  I  participated  under  the  former  commission. 

From  the  moment  of  our  arrival  in  this  city  we  were  assailed  in  no 
measured  terms  by  the  New  York  Herald,  and  circumstances  referred  to 
which  could  be  known  only  to  the  collector  and  those  persons  who  were 
attached  to  the  commission.  My  information  is,  that  Mr.  Curtis  made  use 
of  a  young  man  who  was  secretary  to  the  former  board,  then  in  this  city, 
to  cause  these  articles  to  be  inserted,  so  as  to  protect  himself  from  the 
direct  imputation  of  having  given  them  to  the  editor  himself. 

I  told  Mr.  Curtis  my  belief,  as  1  have  communicated  it  to  you,  on  this 
subject;  headmitted  the  fact  that  the  information  had  been  given  to  the 
editor  by  our  late  secretary,  but  shielded  himself  by  a  denial  of  having 
requested  him  to  do  so.  He  has  exhibited  symptoms  of  great  uneasiness 
from  the  time  the  commissioners  reassembled.  His  object  has  evidently 
been  to  delay  our  investigations  until  we  should  be  compelled  to  give 
them  up  or  to  destroy  the  commission  altogether  ;  and,  if  this  could  not  be 
done,  to  embarrass  our  proceedings,  so  as  to  protect  his  own  conduct  from 
a  full  examination.  I  give  you  these  things  in  perfect  candor,  without 
caring,  individually,  whether  Mr.  Curtis  be  sustained  at  Washington  or 
not.  1  am  aware  of  the  strong  support  which  Mr.  Curtis  relies  on,  from 
a  high  public  functionary  near  the  person  of  the  President ;  perhaps  I 
know  the  foundation  of  the  anxiety  felt  in  that  quarter  to  sustain  the  col- 
lector ;  but  of  this  it  does  not  become  me  to  speak  at  present. 


278  Bep.  No.  669. 


If  I  may  be  allowed  the  privilege  of  a  prophecy,  I  venture  to  predict 
that  whenever  Mr.  Curtis  leaves  the  office  of  collector  of  this  port,  he  will 
leave  it  a  public  defaulter,  if  that  should  happen  to-morrow  ;  and  I  cannot  de- 
ny the  evidence  of  my  own  senses  when  the  fact  is  so  obvious  to  me,  that  the 
same  corruption,  limited  at  present  to  be  sure,  which  existed  under  the 
col  lector  ship  of  Hoyt,  is  to  be  seen  in  full  practice  in  the  custom-house  at 
this  time.  It  has  been  kept  in  check  by  the  commission,  and  by  a  more 
rigid  system  of  instructions  from  your  Department,  but  so  soon  as  these 
restraints  are  withdrawn  or  forgotten,  it  will  resume  its  wonted  vigor. 
These  are  my  opinions,  candidly  expressed,  without  fear,  favor,  or  affec- 
tion, and  I  desire  only  that  they  may  be  taken  for  what  they  are  worth. 

Your  remarks  respecting  the  effect  of  testimony  implicating  Mr.  Cur- 
tis, "  for  oppression,  gross  negligence,  corruption,  or  any  other  thing 
which,  if  verified  by  proof,  would  lead  to  his  expulsion  from  office,"  are 
perfectly  just;  but  then  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  same  result  would  fol- 
low, if  like  proof  has  been  given  concerning  any  other  officer  of  the  cus- 
toms ;  and  even-handed  justice  would  require,  if  a  new  rule  is  to  be  adopt- 
ed in  respect  to  Mr.  Curtis,  that  all  who  have  been  implicated  by  the  tes- 
timony heretofore  taken,  and  who  have  suffered  in  their  official  and 
moral  character,  should  have  the  privilege  of  calling  before  us  the  wit- 
nesses who  have  testified  against  them,  for  the  purpose  of  cross-examina- 
tion. We  ought  not  to  make  u  fish  of  one  and  flesh  of  another."  This 
is  my  sole  objection  to  the  rule,  save  only  the  vast  accumulation  of  unim- 
portant testimony  it  would  occasion,  and  the  protracted  period  to  which 
our  labors  must  have  been  extended  by  these  numerous  cross-examina- 
tions, criminating  on  the  one  side,  and  recrimination  on  the  other.  Had 
it  been,  as  I  have  said,  the  original  mode  of  examination  prescribed  at 
the  Treasury  Department,  there  could  exist  no  possible  objection  on  the 
part  of  the  commissioners,  or  any  one  of  them,  to  your  instructions  in 
respect  to  a  single  officer  of  the  customs.  But  he  is  made  an  exception 
to  all  others,  and  therein  lies  difficulty.  I  have  already  frequently  given 
you  my  opinion  that  this  officer  would  be  sufficiently  protected  by  the  sys- 
tem which  we  had  adopted  of  furnishing  him  with  full  copies  of  ail  testi- 
mony charging  him  with  official  malpractices,  and  putting  to  any  such 
witness  or  witnesses  the  questions  which  he  might  draw  out  in  writing 
and  hand  to  us,  to  be  propounded.  1  regret  that,  at  the  close  of  this 
tedious  and  troublesome  business,  any  thing  should  have  occurred  to  in- 
terrupt its  harmonious  conclusion. 

The  collector  has  now  free  access  to  our  room,  and  to  all  the  papers  on 
our  files.  The  Boston  Press,  devoted  to  the  interests  of  Mr.  Webster, 
and  professedly  of  the  President,  is  well  informed  of  all  that  occurs  in 
the  office  of  the  commissioners,  and  is  excessively  abusive  of  us,  but  more 
especially  of  myself.  Whence  this  information  has  been  derived  it 
would  be  folly  to  doubt. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEO.  POINDEXTER. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward. 


Rep.  No.  669.  279 


George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

New  York,  November  30,  1841. 

Mr.  Poindexter  presents  his  respects  to  the  Hon.  Mr.  Forward,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  and  has  the  honor  to  return  to  him  the  letter  of  Mr. 
Young,  enclosed  to  Mr.  P.  in  an  envelope,  under  the  frank  of  Mr.  F. 

The  letter  of  Mr.  Young  refers  to  a  correspondence  of  which  Mr.  P. 
has  no  knowledge,  and  which  the  records  of  Mr.  Young's  office  will  show 
could  not  have  existed.  On  the  25th  of  May  Mr.  Steuart  was  not  a  mem- 
ber of  the  commission,  and  did  not  become  a  member  of  the  board  for 
nearly  one  month  thereafter. 

The  paper  desired  in  the  communication  of  Mr.  P.  was  a  copy  of 
an  official  answer  of  Mr.  Ewing,  late  Secretary  oi  the  Treasury,  to  an 
official  letter,  addressed  to  him  by  Messrs.  Poindexter  and  Kelley,  on  the 
25th  May,  a  copy  of  which  was  enclosed  to  Mr.  F.  If  Mr.  Ewing  kept 
no  record  of  his  official  letters,  then  it  will  be  impossible  to  show  the  real 
character  of  his  instructions  to  the  commissioners,  prescribing  the  mode 
in  which  they  should  conduct  their  examination  of  witnesses. 

The  next  best  evidence  which  can  be  resorted  to  is  the  correspondence 
of  the  commissioners,  referring  to  these  instructions,  addressed  to  every 
person  who  applied  for  the  privilege  of  being  present  to  cross-examine 
witnesses.  These  are  abundant,  and  clearly  demonstrate  the  character  of 
the  instructions  received  from  Mr.  Ewing. 

Mr.  Poindexter  renews  to  Mr.  Forward  assurances  of  his  high  respect 
and  consideration. 


George  Poindexter  to  the  President. 

New  York,  December  12,  1841. 
My  Dear  Sir  :  I  have  been  detained  in  this  city  for  the  last  four  or 
iive  days  by  indisposition,  which  rendered  exposure  to  the  weather  dan- 
gerous to  my  health.  But  I  have  not  been  idle;  having,  with  the  assist- 
ance of  a  friend,  made  considerable  progress  in  preparing  my  report  to  be 
submitted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  my  arrival  in  Washing- 
ton. It  has  also  been  useful  for  one  of  the  commissioners  to  remain  and 
receive  depositions  on  interrogatories  which  had  been  sent  out  and  not  re- 
turned. 

I  forbear  at  present  to  make  any  comment  on  the  proceedings  of  the 
•new  commissioners,  who,  according  to  the  express  letter  of  their  appoint- 
ment, were  required  to  examine  into  the  affairs  of  the  custom-house,  "  past 
and  present."  Every  thing  relating  to  this  subject  is  in  writing,  and  no 
one  can  be  misled  as  to  facts  by  garbled  or  interested  statements.  From 
the  moment  of  my  anival  here,  in  October  last,  1  have  been  assailed  by 
the  press  recognised  by  public  opinion  as  the  organ  of  your  administra- 
tion, to  a  certain  extent ;  and  occasionally  the  whole  commission  have  re- 
ceived its  denunciation. 

The  privilege  allowed  to  the  collector  to  be  present  at  our  sittings  has 
enabled  him,  among  other  things,  to  furnish  certain  papers,  here  and  at 
Boston,  with  an  account  of  what  transpires  from  day  to  day  in  the  com- 


280 


Rep.  No.  669. 


missioned1  office,  having  the  semblance  of  truth,  but  tortured  and  mis- 
represented so  as  to  answer  his  purposes,  and  bring  certain  members  of 
the  board,  whom  he  cannot  influence,  into  contempt  and  derision;  and 
all  this  is  effected  through  the  press  of  that  administration  under  whose  ap- 
pointment we  have  acted  ;  and  if  our  labors  result  in  any  thing  of  value  to 
the  country,  they  will,  to  that  extent,  illustrate  your  fame  and  the  char- 
acter of  your  administration.  This  may,  and  no  doubt  would,  surprise 
any  one  not  well  acquainted  with  the  secret  springs  by  which  this  ma- 
chinery is  moved.  But,  for  the  present,  I  will  add  nothing  more  on  this 
branch  of  the  history  of  this  commission. 

I  think  I  have  a  right  to  credit  the  sincerity  of  the  friendship  which  has 
so  long  subsisted  between  you  and  myself;  at  least,  consulting  the  pulsa- 
tions of  my  own  heart,  and  knowing  that  my  friendship  for  you  has  never 
faltered,  under  any  and  every  circumstance,  I  should  do  you,  I  am  sure, 
great  injustice,  to  doubt,  for  a  moment,  your  ready  response  to  the  feelings 
which  occupy  my  own  bosom.  It  has  been  my  custom,  and  I  see  no  pro- 
priety in  departing  from  it  on  the  present  occasion,  to  speak  on  all  sub- 
jects to  you  with  perfect  frankness  and  candor.  I  have  repeatedly  said  to 
you  thac  whensoever  I  might  discover  any  thing  in  your  conduct  calculat- 
ed to  weaken  my  confidence  in  you,  either  in  public  or  private  life,  you 
should  be  the  first  person  to  whom  I  would  communicate  the  fact.  I  shall 
never  depart  from  this  rule  of  action  ;  and  so  long  as  I  remain  silent,  I 
hope  and  trust  you  will  rest  satisfied  that  I  stand  towards  you  precisely  as  I 
have  heretofore  done. 

I  make  these  remarks,  not  to  deprecate  even  your  displeasure,  while  I  am 
conscious  that  it  is  not  merited  ;  but  my  purpose  is  to  apprize  you  that  I 
know  perfectly  well  the  workings  and  dark  intrigues  of  a  clique^  who  will 
employ  all  the  secret  engines  of  perfidy  and  deception,  not  to  enlighten 
your  mind  by  a  candid  representation  of  facts,  but,  by  u  falsehood  most 
foul,"  and  smiles  most  deceitful,  to  lead  you  into  the  grossest  errors,  for 
their  own  individual  benefit,  even  though  it  should  lead  to  your  inevitable 
downfall.  This  clique  will  assail  me  in  the  public  journals,  and  you  will 
be  cautioned  against  reposing  confidence  in  one  of  your  most  steadfast, 
unyielding,  and  enduring  friends.  1  know  the  men — I  know  their  cor- 
rupt motives — 1  know  the  means  they  intend  to  employ  to  save  themselves 
and  to  destroy  me.  I  am  armed  at  all  points,  and  ready  to  open  the  war 
whensoever  they  may  think  proper,  provided  it  is  done  openly,  and  not  un- 
der the  protection  of  official  confidence. 

I  have  addressed  to  you  these  remarks,  that,  at  a  future  day,  I  may  re- 
cur to  them,  if  it  should  become  necessary,  in  my  own  vindication.  But 
it  is  the  farthest  thing  in  the  world  from  my  intention  to  intimate  a  belief 
that  you  could,  under  any  influences  which  might  be  brought  to  bear  upon 
your  mind,  lend  a  listening  ear  to  any  evil  minded  counsellor  who  might 
secretly  seek  to  make  an  impression  by  means  which  he  would  not  dare 
publicly  to  avow. 

1  enclose  you  a  slip  from  the  New  York  Herald,  a  paper  of  which  it 
is  not  necessary  to  express  any  opinion,  but  which  is  regarded  here  as  en- 
joying the  favor  of  the  President.  I  am  wholly  unacquainted  with  the 
editor,  and  have  never  communicated  any  matter  for  publication  in  his 
journal.  I  can,  therefore,  have  no  possible  feeling  of  hostility  towards 
him,  nor  can  he  entertain  such  feelings  towards  me,  having  given  him  no 
cause  to  do  so.    The  slip  which  I  have  cut  out  of  his  paper  this  morning 


Rep.  No.  669. 


281 


is  not  his  production  ;  it  is  a  continuation  of  the  communications  made 
through  that  channel,  by  Mr.  Curtis,  your  collector  at  this  port,  to  bring 
into  disrepute  in  the  eyes  of  the  American  people,  your  commission,  in- 
stituted to  investigate  his  official  conduct.  The  paragraph  is  the  offspring 
of  the  head  of  the  New  York^custom-house,  and  does  not  contain  one 
word  of  truth,  except  in  that  part  which  refers  to  Col.  Steuart  as 
having  become  the  voluntary  bearer  of  despatches,  records,  books,  and  pa- 
pers, from  the  commissioners'  office  to  the  Department  of  the  Treasury. 

In  all  this  there  is  nothing  very  remarkable,  except  the  secrecy  observed 
towards  the  other  commissioners  in  this  movement,  and  the  snow  storm 
which  sprung  up,  to  the  great  annoyance  of  all  travellers  by  night.  When 
I  became  informed  of  the  departuie  of  Colonel  Steuart,  and  his  purpose. 
I  at  once  accorded  my  approbation  to  the  transfer  of  these  books  of  cor- 
respondence to  a  place  of  security  out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  State  of 
New  York;  but,  had  I  been  consulted,  I  should  have  thought  it  best  to 
place  these  volumes  within  reach  of  the  commissioners  until  your  pleasure 
should  have  been  known  in  relation  to  them.  But  I  make  no  complaint 
of  their  immediate  transfer  to  the  Treasury  Department,  and  am  happy 
to  learn  through  this  paragraph  that  it  meets  your  approbation.  Beyond 
this  particular  fact,  noticed  in  the  slip,  there  is  not  a  single  sentence  having 
even  the  semblance  of  truth. 

The  collector,  Curtis,  in  furnishing  this  statement  to  the  Herald,  dis- 
played his  usual  cunning,  by  attempting  to  conceal  himself  under  a  mis- 
statement of  the  number  of  volumes  taken  to  Washington  by  Colonel 
Steuart.  u  The  commissioners  (says  he)  got  possession  of  some  five  vol- 
umes of  correspondence  of  Jesse  Hoyt."  Now,  the  fact  was  well  known 
to  Mr.  Curtis,  that  fifteen  volumes  were  sent  by  him  to  the  commissioners' 
room,  and  he  makes  this  false  statement  to  elude  observation,  as  every 
one  acquainted  with  the  transaction  is  well  aware  that  he  knew  the  pre- 
cise number  of  volumes  in  the  possession  of  the  commissioners.  The  veil 
is  too  flimsy  to  conceal  him,  especially  as  I  know  that  he  furnished  the 
material  for  this  paragraph.  There  can  be  no  mistake  about  it  ;  and  this 
1  am  ready  to  verify. 

The  idea  that  Mr.  Steuart,  in  a  few  hours,  read  fifteen  volumes  of  evi- 
dence is  amusing  enough.    But  let  that  pass. 

Our  attention  had  been  drawn  to  these  volumes  of  correspondence 
during  our  sittings  under  the  first  commission.  We  then  believed  them  to 
be  important  to  our  investigations,  and  seeing  many  of  the  official  letters 
of  Mr.  Hoyt,  and  the  replies  to  them,  published  in  a  newspaper  of  this  city, 
we,  on  the  28th  June,  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Curtis  respecting  the 
manner  in  which  this  correspondence  found  its  way  into  the  newspapers, 
who  replied  to  us,  on  the  same  day,  that  he  was  informed  and  believed 
that  Mr.  Hoyt  retained  the  u  most  of  his  correspondence  with  the  various 
Departments  of  the  Government and  it  is  worthy  of  remark  that,  at  the 
very  time  Mr.  Curtis  wrote  this  reply,  the  fifteen  volumes  of  correspond- 
ence, which  are  now  safely  deposited  in  the  Treasury  Department,  were 
in  his  own  office,  or  in  an  adjoining  office,  and  most  probably  in  the  room 
occupied  by  Curtis  himself.  It  appears  by  an  official  correspondence  now 
before  me,  obtained  by  the  commissioners  from  the  custom-house,  that,  in 
a  very  few  days  after  Mr.  Curtis  had  denied  that  there  was  any  official 
correspondence  of  Jesse  Hoyt  in  his  possession,  (to  wit,  on  the  7th  July, 
1841,)  he  addressed  a  letter,  as  collector,  to  Jesse  Hoyt,  late  collector,  in 


282 


Rep.  No.  669. 


which  he  alleges,  by  the  authority  of  Mr.  Gillelan,  that  Mr.  Hoyt  retained 

in  his  possession  his  official  correspondence  with  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  a  miscellaneous  official  correspondence  of  the  collector,  and  his 
correspondence  with  the  law  officers  of  the  United  States  during  his 
official  term.  To  this  allegation  Mr.  Hoyt  replied,  u  that  Mr.  Gillelan  is 
entirely  mistaken.  It  is  true  several  of  these  volumes  are  in  the  auditor's 
office,  and  I  believe  go  regularly  down  to  the  vault  every  night,  and  they 
are  now  in  the  box  in  which  they  go  up  and  down  to  that  vault  daily 
He  further  says  "  that  Mr.  Hone,  a  deputy  collector,  called  on  me  for  one 
of  the  volumes,  and  seemed  to  consider  it  as  my  property,  and  offered  to 
return  it.  I  told  him  they  were  not  mine,  but  belonged  to  the  office  ;  and 
so  I  have  always  considered."  Again  :  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor  of  the 
custom-house,  testifies,  under  oath,  that  these  fifteen  volumes  of  correspond- 
ence have  been  constantly  in  the  possession  of  the  collector. 

It  remains  to  be  explained  how  Mr.  Curtis,  who  fills  a  high  and  respon- 
sible office,  which  he  holds  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President,  can  justify 
himself  to  the  Government,  and  to  the  moral  feeling  of  the  American 
people,  for  having,  on  the  28th  June,  1841,  officially  communicated  to  the 
commissioners  that  Mr.  Hoyt,  when  he  left  the  office  of  collector,  had 
taken  with  him  the  whole,  or  nearly  the  whole,  of  his  official  correspond- 
ence, and,  on  the  7th  July  following  charges  that  apart  only  of  this  cor- 
respondence was  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  who  promptly  responds 
that  he  has  not,  and  never  has  had,  any  part  of  his  official  correspondence  ; 
that  the  whole  of  it  is  in  the  collector's  office,  or  in  that  of  the  auditor, 
immediately  adjoining ;  and  that  he  had  set  up  no  claim  to  it  as  his  private 
property,  nor  did  he  intend  to  make  any  such  claim  :  and,  more  fully  to  de- 
monstrate, if  it  were  necessary,  the  falsehood  contained  in  the  letter  of 
Mr.  Curtis  of  the  28th  June,  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor,  was  called  on, 
who  proves,  in  the  most  explicit  terms,  that  these  books  of  correspondence 
had  been  at  all  times  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Curtis,  and  at  no  time  ab- 
sent. It  is  my  deliberate  opinion  that  the  recent  demand  made  by  Mr. 
Hoyt,  since  these  books  were  put  into  the  possession  of  the  commissioners, 
was  a  plan  concerted  between  Hoyt  and  Curtis,  the  collector,  to  furnish 
the  latter  with  some  pretext  on  which  to  found  an  apology  for  the  naked 
falsehood  contained  in  his  letter  to  the  commissioners,  in  which  he  asserts 
that  Mr.  Hoyt  left  no  official  correspondence  in  the  office  at  the  time  he 
withdrew  from  it. 

I  would  not,  with  the  lights  before  me,  undertake  to  assert  positively 
that  this  whole  secret  movement,  respecting  the  transfer  of  the  fifteen  vol- 
umes of  correspondence  to  the  Treasury  Department,  was  concerted  be- 
tween Curtis  and  the  commissioner  who  took  them  to  Washington,  but  I 
will  state  that  such  is  my  belief,  which  I  have  strong  reasons  for  enter- 
taining, and  that  the  whole  farce  was  played  off  for  no  other  purpose  than 
to  whitewash  the  collector,  if  possible,  and  thereby  secure  his  continuance 
in  office.  Why  did  Mr.  Hoyt  make  a  formal  demand  of  correspondence, 
the  title  to  which  he  had  explicitly  renounced  in  his  letter  of  the  8th  July 
to  the  collector?  Why  did  Mr.  Curtis  deny,  on  the  28th  June,  that  any 
such  correspondence  was  in  his  possession  ? 

These  transactions  carry  on  their  face  strong  features  of  collusion  and 
fraud,  and  I  will  here  take  occasion  to  add,  that,  if  these  volumes  of  cor- 
respondence had  been  supplied  to  the  commissioners  during  their  session 
last  summer,  it  would  have  saved  the  Government  thousands  of  dollars 


Rep.  No.  669.  283 

and  the  commissioners  great  labor,  in  searching  out  evidence,  which  would 
at  once  have  appeared  in  the  official  letters  of  Mr.  Hoyt.  But  the  fact  is 
undeniable,  that  a  close  intimacy  has  existed  between  Hoyt  and  Curtis 
since  the  induction  of  the  latter  into  office  ;  and  that  they  have  continually 
played  into  each  other's  hands  is  too  notorious  in  New  York  to  admit  of 
the  slightest  doubt.  On  the  contrary,  with  professions  of  a  sincere  desire 
to  promote  the  investigations  of  the  commissioners,  I  aver  that  Mr.  Curtis 
has,  from  the  beginning, smothered  up  every  thing  in  his  power,  and  thrown 
every  difficulty  in  the  way  of  our  obtaining  testimony.  In  this  he  was 
sustained  throughout  by  Mr.  Kelley,  for  causes  of  which  you  have  been 
long  since  informed. 

1  forbear  to  speak  of  recent  events  at  present,  because  it  is  my  wish  to 
close  this  commission  in  peace  ;  but  there  are  facts  which  I  shall  not  hesi- 
tate to  disclose  at  a  future  day,  should  I  find  it  necessary,  to  place  my  own 
conduct  in  a  clear  light  before  the  public. 

Mr.  Curtis  stands  convicted  of  falsehood  on  the  journals  of  the  com- 
missioners. Under  his  own  oath,  he  gives  the  lie  direct  to  a  statement  on 
the  same  subject  made  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  The  evidence 
is  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Forward,  and  can  be  shown  to  you  if  desired. 
There  are  numerous  other  instances  which  I  could  mention,  and  which, 
perhaps,  I  may  mention  hereafter,  of  the  grossest  falsehood  of  this  officer 
of  the  Government,  in  his  correspondence  with  the  Department  at  Wash- 
ington. I  may  possibly  call  your  attention  to  this  subject  on  my  return  to 
the  seat  of  Government. 

I  shall  have  it  in  my  power  to  be  more  explicit,  in  reference  to  the  of- 
ficial acts  of  Mr.  Curtis,  in  the  report  which  I  am  preparing  for  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  ;  but  I  could  not  forbear,  as  I  had  taken  up  my  pen, 
to  give  you  the  foregoing  plain  summary  of  facts,  which  do  not  depend  on 
my  word,  but  on  the  official  records  of  the  New  York  custom-house,  and 
are  therefore  beyond  the  reach  of  controversy. 

It  is,  perhaps,  due  to  candor  to  state,  in  conclusion,  my  firm  conviction, 
drawn  from  premises  too  imposing  to  be  lightly  treated,  that  if,  under  any 
circumstances,  you  should  be  induced  to  maintain  Edward  Curtis  in  the 
office  of  collector  in  the  port  of  New  York,  it  will  result  in  affixing  a  dark 
spot  on  the  tablet  of  your  administration.  I  hope  in  this,  I  may  be  mista- 
ken ;  but  it  would  be  treachery  and  deceit  on  my  part  to  withhold  from 
i   you  my  clear  conviction  that  you  will  ultimately  find  it  true  to  the  letter. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  friend  and  obedient 
servant, 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 


Extract  from  the  New  York  Herald. 

"  Blown  and  Flown. — We  mentioned  a  day  or  two  since  that  the 
custom-house  commissioners  had  left  for  Washington.  President  Tyler 
thought  they  had  been  here  too  long,  and  had  the  same  intimated  to  his 
ex-excellency  Governor  Poins  and  his  associates.  It  seems  that,  about  a 
week  since,  the  commissioners  got  possession  of  some  five  volumes  of  cor- 
respondence of  Jesse  Hoyt,  from  the  custom-house.  Mr  Hoyt,  in  a  letter 
written  to  the  commissioners,  demanded  their  restoration  as  private  prop- 
erty;  to  which  a  majority  of  the  board  were  about  to  accede.  Mr.  Steu- 
art,  who  had  examined  them,  seeing  the  importance  they  were  to  the  Gov- 


284 


Rep.  No.  669. 


ernment,  and  fearing  they  might  be  replevined,  with  great  promptitude 
immediately  departed  with  the  books  for  Washington,  and  deposited  them 
in  the  Treasury  Department,  where  they  properly  belonged.  The  Pres- 
ident and  Secretary  both  approved  of  this  course  of  Mr.  Steuart,  and  re- 
quested him,  on  his  return,  to  close  the  commission. 

"  These  are  the  material  facts,  as  far  as  they  have  come  to  our  know- 
ledge. 

"  We  believe  it  is  in  contemplation  to  reward  ex-counsellor  Dwight  for 
bis  important  services  with  a  special  embassy  to  the  Fegee  islands." 


George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

New  toRK,  December  14,  1841. 

Sir:  It  becomes  my  duty  to  acquaint  you  of  the  fact  that,  in  the  early  part 
of  the  past  week,  I  suffered  under  the  effects  of  a  severe  cold,  accompa- 
nied by  nervous  headache  and  fever,  which  rendered  it  dangerous  to 
my  health  to  leave  my  room,  as  any  exposure  to  the  weather  would  have 
increased  my  illness,  and  thereby  prevent  altogether  my  attention  to  busi- 
ness. I  have  kept  in-doors,  and  occupied  myself  as  far  as  practicable  in 
preparing  my  report  on  the  evidence  taken  by  the  commissioners  in  their 
investigation  into  the  affairs,  past  and  present,  of  the  New  York  custom- 
house. I  have  made  considerable  progress  in  this  report,  which  will  be 
completed  with  as  little  delay  as  the  importance  of  the  subjects  to  be 
touched,  and  the  voluminous  papers  to  be  examined,  will  permit.  My  im- 
mediate return  to  Washington  without  having  closed  this  last  duty,  de- 
volving on  me  as  one  of  the  commissioners,  would  be  productive  of  still 
further  delays,  and  of  confusion  in  the  chain  of  thought  which  is  indis- 
pensable to  a  clear  understanding  of  my  views,  and  of  accurate  reference 
to  testimony;  all  of  which  is  highly  important  in  a  document  which  is  in- 
intended  for  the  use  of  your  Department,  and  for  the  information  of  Con- 
gress and  the  country.  I  hope,  therefore,  that  you  will  concur  with  me  in 
the  opinion  that  the  public  interests  will  be  promoted,  and  the  termination 
of  this  long-protracted  investigation  hastened,  by  pursuing  my  analysis  of 
the  evidence  to  its  conclusion  without  interruption,  before  1  proceed  from 
this  city  to  Washington.  I  would  remark  that  the  subjects  which  will  be 
brought  to  the  view  of  the  National  Legislature  by  the  report  are  connect- 
ed with  vaiious  modifications  of  the  existing  revenue  laws,  which  will  be 
suggested  by  the  evils  which  have  in  a  measure  sprung  up  under  the  pres- 
ent system,  and  therefore  will,  in  all  probability,  not  be  acted  on  by  Con- 
gress earlier  than  the  next  spring.  It  is  certainly  more  to  be  desired 
that  the  report  should  be  accurate  in  all  its  details,  and  well  matured,  than 
that  it  should  be  hastened  to  gratify  public  curiosity.  I  beg  you  to  be  as- 
sured that  whatever  can  be  effected  by  untiring  industry  and  vigilance 
shall  be  done  to  bring  the  onerous  duties  with  which  I  have  been  charged 
to  a  final,  and,  I  hope,  satisfactory  termination. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant. 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


285 


George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

New  York,  December  17,  1841. 

Sir  :  You  will  perceive,  by  the  enclosed  note  from  Mr.  Thruston,  sec- 
retary of  the  commission,  that  the  answers  to  interrogatories  put  by  the 
commissioners  to  E  B.  Huntington,  an  assistant  appraiser,  appointed  by 
your  predecessor,  were  handed  by  him  to  Col.  Steuart  before  he  left  this 
city  for  Washington.  These  answers  not  being  on  file,  the  secretary 
called  on  Mr.  Huntington  for  a  copy  of  them,  in  order  to  enable  him  to 
make  up  his  record.  The  copy  being  furnished,  I  deemed  the  answers  to 
be  unsatisfactory  and  evasive ;  and  therefore  caused  them  to  be  returned 
to  the  witness,  for  more  perfect  answers. 

It  becomes  my  duty,  therefore,  to  enclose  you  a  copy  of  the  letter  of 
Mr.  Thruston  to  Mr.  Huntington,  and  his  reply,  declining  to  give  more 
full  and  complete  answers. 

I  make  no  comment  on  the  character  of  this  reply,  because  you  cannot 
mistake  either  its  arrogance  or  the  insulting  manner  in  which  he  gratui- 
tously refers  to  me  in  the  conclusion  of  his  note. 

I  anticipated,  before  I  reached  this  city,  that  it  would  be  impossible  to 
obtain  any  evidence  from  the  custom-house  officers,  under  the  control  of 
Mr.  Curtis,  without  adequate  authority  from  Washington  to  coerce  them. 
My  reasons  for  entertaining  this  opinion  have  already  been  fully  made 
known  to  you,  and  my  predictions  have  been  more  than  verified. 

To  this  instance  of  the  insolence  of  the  subordinates  of  Mr.  Curtis,  I 
will  add  that,  finding  it  necessary,  in  making  out  a  comparative  statement 
of  the  expenditures  of  books  and  stationery  made  under  Mr.  Hoyt,  and 
those  recently  made  by  Mr.  Curtis,  I  caused  the  secretary  to  apply  to  the 
auditor,  Mr.  Fleming,  for  a  statement  of  the  prices  paid  by  him  for  blank 
and  printed  books,  and  the  number  of  each  purchased  since  Mr.  Curtis 
came  into  office. 

|  He  replied  that  he  would  not  furnish  the  information  desired,  alleging, 
as  a  reason,  that  he  did  not  recognise  my  authority  to  call  for  it. 

You  will  find,  by  casting  your  eye  over  my  first  commission,  to  which 
the  second  refers,  that  the  commissioners  are  authorized  to  proceed  in 
the  execution  of  their  commission  "jointly  or  separately."  The  collect- 
or, under  whose  orders  Mr.  Fleming  has  acted  in  this  matter,  is  in 
possession  of  a  copy  of  my  commission,  and  therefore  could  not  be  ig- 
norant of  my  right  to  call  for  this  information.  One  of  the  objects  to  be 
accomplished  by  my  remaining  in  New  York  was  to  perfect  the  testimony 
already  begun  by  interrogatories  which  had  not  been  answered  before 
my  colleagues  returned  to  Washington.  Several  depositions  have  been 
sent  in  and  delivered  to  the  secretary,  and  more  are  expected  in  a  few 
days,  to  complete  the  examination  of  witnesses  commenced,  while  all  the 
members  of  the  board  were  present. 

A  call  was  made  on  Mr.  Curtis,  by  an  order  of  the  board,  for  samples 
of  the  books  purchased  for  the  use  of  the  custom-house  since  he  came 
into  office,  which  he  did  not  answer  in  a  full  and  satisfactory  manner ;  and 
for  that  reason  1  thought  it  my  duty  to  call  again  for  the  information,  which 
has  been  denied  to  me  by  this  subordinate  officer  of  the  custom-house. 

I  chronicle  these  events  for  your  information,  and  for  future  reference,, 
if  it  shall  become  necessary,  without  intimating  any  opinion  as  to  the 
course  which  ought  to  be  taken  towards  these  officers.    I  have  no  wishes 


1 

286  Rep.  No.  669. 

distinct  from  the  performance  of  my  duties  to  the  Government — no  feelings 
of  a  personal  character  to  gratify — but  in  all  things  am  perfectly  content 
to  leave  every  matter,  connected  with  the  conduct  of  the  officers  of  the  cus- 
toms, to  the  judgment  of  these  to  whom  they  are  responsible. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Secretary  to  Gov.  Poindexter. 

Treasury  Department,  December  23,  1841. 
Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  14th  instant,  on  the  necessity  of  remaining  in 
New  York  on  account  of  ill  health,  &c,  was  duly  received.  Any  course 
which  you  may  think  most  conducive  to  the  public  interest,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances mentioned,  in  regard  to  the  preparation  of  the  report  of  the 
commission,  will  meet  with  my  entire  approval. 
I  am,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

*W.  FORWARD,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
Hon.  George  Poindexter,  Neiv  York. 


George  Poindexter  to  the  President. 

New  York,  December  26,  1841. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  It  is  due  to  my  own  honor  and  sense  of  propriety,  as 
well  as  to  the  very  high  respect  which  I  entertain  for  you,  to  notice  another 
of  the  unprovoked  attacks  made  on  me  through  the  Herald  newspaper  of 
-this  city,  purporting  to  be  a  letter  from  the  correspondent  of  that  paper  at 
Washington  city.  The  letter  was  written  either  by  the  collector  or  some 
one  employed  by  him  for  the  purpose,  or  the  materiel  furnished  from  that 
quarter  to  the  letter  writer  in  Washington.  I  will  simply  say,  in  general 
terms,  that  there  is  not  one  single  word  of  truth  in  the  letter,  so  far 
as  it  relates  to  myself. 

The  object  of  the  collector  from  the  beginning  has  been  to  break  up  the 
•commission  or  shorten  its  labors,  so  that  his  conduct  might  not  be  fully  ex- 
posed. But  if  this  could  not  be  effected,  ( in  which  he  has,  however,  suc- 
ceeded to  a  certain  extent,)  his  next  object  was  to  provoke  a  personal 
altercation  with  myself,  and  thereby  weaken  the  report,  which  I  shall  feel 
bound  to  make  to  the  Treasury  Department,  in  relation  to  the  moral  turpi- 
tude and  malconduct  of  that  officer  of  the  customs.  On  one  occasion,  after 
I  had  become  informed  of  a  gross  falsehood  written  by  him  officially  to  Mr. 
Forward,  which  contradicted  his  own  testimony  given  before  the  commis- 
sioners under  oath,  he  made  his  appearance,  as  he  always  did,  without 
ceremony,  in  our  office,  early  the  next  morning.  He  offered,  in  a  very 
bland  manner,  to  speak  to  me.  I  rejected  his  hand,  and  being  provoked 
by  some  remark  of  his,  I  was  induced,  in  a  moment  of  excitement,  to  use 
very  strong  language  to  him  personally,  and  ordered  him  never  to  offer  to 
speak  to  me  again.  This  I  regretted,  not  because  he  did  not  deserve  it, 
but  because,  on  reflection,  1  perceived  at  once  his  purpose  in  assailing  my 


Rep.  No.  669. 


feelings  to  be,  what  I  have  before  referred  to,  first,  to  raise  a  personal 
difficulty  with  me,  and  then  refer  to  it  to  weaken  the  force  of  my  report 
,  on  his  conduct.  He  has  the  same  object  in  view  in  the  use  he  makes  of 
the  Herald  to  annoy  my  feelings  and  excite  me  to  take  some  notice  of  the 
miserable  falsehoods  which  he  causes  to  be  published  concerning  me. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  take  any  notice  whatever  of  these  vulgar  and 
unwarrantable  attacks,  but  to  go  on  and  perform  my  duty,  as  I  always  have 
done,  faithfully  and  impartially. 

My  purpose  in  remaining  in  New  York  has  been  two  fold  :  first  to  com- 
plete the  record  of  the  testimony  which  the  Secretary  was  ordered  to  do 
by  a  resolution  of  the  board,  and  to  receive  outstanding  depositions  which 
had  not  been  returned  when  the  other  commissioners  left  here  ;  secondly, 
to  facilitate  the  completion  of  my  report,  which,  you  may  rest  assured,  is 
not  the  work  of  a  day — having  to  explore  several  volumes  of  testimony, 
and  prepare  statistics,  which  required  both  time  and  labor  to  render 
accurate,  and  place  all  my  views  in  strict  accordance  with  the  evi- 
dence in  all  respects,  so  that  I  might  not  be  subjected  to  corrections  at  a 
1  future  day.  To  accomplish  these  purposes  1  remain  here,  and  shall  con- 
tinue without  intermission  to  draw  out  my  report,  so  as  to  make  it  accord, 
in  every  particular,  with  the  evidence  as  it  is  recorded. 

But  if  the  suggestions  repeatedly  made  through  the  Herald,  concerning 
your  wishes,  coming,  as  they  profess  to  do,  from  Washington,  should  be 
correct,  there  can  be  no  difficulty  in  transmitting  the  evidence  to  Congress, 
as  the  originals  are  with  the  commissioners  at  the  Treasury  Department, 
and  my  report  will  be  handed  in  when  it  is  completed,  in  a  manner  satis- 
factory to  myself,  and,  I  hope,  when  it  is  seen,  to  you  and  to  the  country. 
You  are  well  enough  acquainted  with  me  to  know  that  I  can  never  con- 
i  sent  to  pass  any  thing  from  my  hands  in  an  imperfect  state,  always  deem- 
■  ing  it  more  important  to  discharge  my  duties  laithfully  than  to  number  the 
:  moments  which  it  requires  to  do  so. 

I  will  add  one  word  as  to  the  reasons  which  influence  me  to  remain 
here,  rather  than  proceed  to  Washington  and  attempt  to  finish  my  report 
there.  At  this  place,  I  have  a  private  room,  entirely  undisturbed  by  the 
presence  of  any  other  person  than  my  amanuensis;  and  every  opportunity 
is  afforded  me  of  quiet  and  careful  examination  of  all  the  subjects  on  which 
I  have  to  report.  In  Washington,  the  room  assigned  to  the  commission- 
ers in  the  Treasury  Department  would  be  continually  occupied  by  all  the 
commissioners  and  their  clerks,  which  would  utterly  defeat  all  my  efforts 
s  in  perfecting  the  report  with  that  care  and  caution  which  is  essential  to 
render  it  of  any  value. 

These  considerations  have  brought  my  mind  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
public  interests  would  be  promoted  by  remaining  in  New  York  until  my 
report  is  finished,  which  I  hope  will  not  occupy  many  days,  as  the  most 
difficult  parts  of  it  have  been  nearly  completed.  But  if  my  presence  at 
Washington  can  be  of  any  avail,  1  am  perfectly  willing  to  return  and  do 
the  best  I  can  to  close  my  views  of  the  testimony  in  that  city. 

The  expense  would  be  the  same  here  and  at  Washington  ;  and  consid- 
ering the  facts  before  stated,  together  with  the  impossibility  of  obtaining 
a  private  apartment  at  Washington,  either  in  the  Treasury  building  or 
at  the  Capitol,  where  the  committee  rooms  are  all  occupied,  I  shall,  unless 


288 


Rep.  No.  669. 


otherwise  directed  by  you,  remain  where  I  am  until  my  duties  are  ended 
as  far  as  practicable. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  friend  and  obedient 
servant, 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 

His  Excellency  John  Tyler. 


Geo.  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

New  York,  December  27,  1841. 

Sir  :  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  under  date  of  the  23d 
inst.  It  is  very  evident  that  my  labors  can  be  closed  more  speedily,  and 
with  greater  accuracy,  in  this  city  than  at  Washington.  I  could  not,  in 
the  commission  room,  surrounded  by  five  or  six  persons,  dictate  a  report  to 
my  amanuensis  ;  nor  could  I  give  to  the  testimony  that  critical  examina- 
tion which  is  essential  to  a  proper  exposition  of  its  nature  and  character. 
My  purpose  is  to  serve  the  Government  and  country  ;  and  I  may  truly  say 
that  I  entertain  no  selfish  views,  having  undertaken  this  most  unpleasant 
duty  by  the  particular  desire  of  the  President,  at  the  sacrifice  of  my  own 
private  pecuniary  interests,  and  of  that  peace  of  mind,  arising  out  of  a  faith- 
ful discharge  of  my  duty,  which  at  my  time  of  life  is  very  precious.  I  find  my- 
self abused,  misrepresented,  and  calumniated,  in  the  most  scandalous 
manner,  in  certain  prints  which  profess  to  sustain  the  administration  of 
President  Tyler,  while  I  am  laboring  with  untiring  assiduity  to  fulfil  the 
task  assigned  me  by  that  administration,  and  if  possible  to  correct  evils 
which  have  heretofore  existed,  and  which  still  exist,  in  the  custom-house  of 
this  great  emporium  of  commerce,  and  thereby  protect  the  public  revenue, 
and  illustrate  the  fame  of  our  most  excellent  Chief  Magistrate, 

This  is  a  strange  state  of  things,  brought  about,  in  a  great  measure,  as  I 
know,  by  the  intrigues  of  the  collector  of  this  port,  and  certain  adjuncts,  who 
desire  to  shield  his  conduct  from  strict  investigation,  and  maintain  him  in 
his  present  position.  I  shall,  never  theless,  fearlessly  and  faithfully  meet  the 
difficulties  which  surround  me,  and  unfold  to  the  Government  and  people  of 
the  United  States  the  truth  as  it  is  recorded  in  the  evidence  taken  by  the 
commissioners.  I  can  perceive  no  necessity  for  continuing  the  commis- 
sion a  moment  longer ;  no  new  testimony  will  be  taken,  and  the  report  of 
the  commission,  or  any  member  of  it,  can  be  handed  in  when  it  is  com- 
pleted, so  that  the  whole  may  be  ready  to  answer  a  call  of  Congress  im- 
mediately after  the  holidays. 

The  small  compensation  which  I  receive,  as  a  commissioner,  forms  no 
part  of  the  consideration  which  impels  me  to  devote  my  whole  time  to  the 
discharge  of  the  trust  which  1  have  undertaken  ;  and  I  should  be  better 
satisfied  to  remain  here,  at  my  own  expense,  until  I  am  ready  to  report, 
than  to  subject  myself  to  the  miserable  imputation  cast  at  me  by  dema- 
gogues, and  a  venal  press,  that  pecuniary  reward  or  the  crumbs  of  ofhce 
are  the  causes  of  the  unavoidable  delay  which  must  take  place  before 
these  duties  can  be  brought  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 

I  thank  you  for  the  confidence  which  you  are  pleased  to  repose  in  ray 


Rep.  No.  669. 


289 


idelity  to  the  public  interest.  I  beg  you  to  be  assured  that  it  is  duly  appre- 
;iated,  and  no  effort  of  mine  shall  be  wanting  to  fulfil  your  just  expectations. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEO.  POINDEXTER. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Secretary  to  Geo.  Poind exter. 

Treasury  Department,  January  6,  1842. 
Sir  :  You  will  receive  herewith  ten  volumes  of  the  correspondence  of 
J.  Hoyt,  belonging  to  the  custom  house  of  New  York. 

These  books  were  received  from  Colonel  Steuart,  one  of  the  commis- 
sioners, together  with  four  other  volumes,  which  will  be  returned  in  a  few 
days;  and  having  been  obtained  by  the  commissioners  for  the  custom- 
bouse,  it  is  thought  proper  to  forward  them  to  you,  in  order  that  they  may 
be  returned  to  the  possession  of  the  collector. 

With  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  FORWARD, 
Secret ary  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  Geo.  Poindexter. 


The  Secretary  to  the  Hon.  George  Poindexter. 

Treasury  Department,  January  7,  1842. 
Sir  :  The  President  is  exceedingly  desirous  that  the  report  of  the  com- 
missioners should  be  prepared  and  submitled  as  soon  as  possible,  and 
Messrs.  Steuart  and  Bradley  being  now  in  Washington,  he  has  instruct- 
ed me  to  request  you  to  return  here,  for  the  purpose  of  conferring  with 
them  and  completing  the  report. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  FORWARD, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Hon.  Geo.  Poindexter,  New  York. 


Geo.  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

New  York,  January  8,  1842. 

Sir  :  I  have  been  delayed  in  perfecting  my  report  for  the  past  week, 
in  consequence  of  the  absence  of  Mr.  Dwight,  who  was  compelled  to 
visit  Washington  to  obtain  the  originals  or  copies  of  the  official  cor- 
respondence of  Mr.  Hoyt,  which  had  been  removed,  without  my  know- 
ledge or  consent,  by  one  of  the  commissioners.  I  still  entertain  the 
opinion  that  the  volumes  of  correspondence  sent  by  the  collector  to  the 
commissioners  were  transferred  to  Washington  by  a  concerted  plan  of 
operations  between  the  collector  and  Hoyt ;  and  that  one  great  object 
was  to  prevent  my  having  the  use  of  them. 

They  might  have  been  placed  out  of  the  reach  of  the  process  of  re- 


290 


Rep.  No.  669. 


plevin,  and  still  have  been  accessible  to  the  commissioners  ;  but  no  one 
believed  that  a  State  law  could,  under  any  circumstances,  operate  to  de- 
prive the  Government,  lor  a  single  moment,  of  the  possession  of  the 
archives  properly  belonging  to  any  department  thereof.  The  books,  how- 
ever, have  been  removed,  without  consultation,  and  without  the  order  of 
the  commissioners.  Will  they  be  returned,  so  that  1  can  use  them  ?  My 
information  is,  that  the  commissioner  who  removed  them  made  an  effort 
to  retain  them ;  but,  failing  in  this,  he  still  keeps  possession  of  four 
volumes,  which,  he  is  well  aware,  contain  the  correspondence  which  will 
be  useful  to  me.  He  has  had  ample  opportunity  to  explore  this  corres- 
pondence, and  take  memoranda  of  every  material  part  of  it,  or  even  to 
have  had  copies  made  ;  and  1  doubt  very  much  whether,  in  point  of  fact, 
he  is  making  any  use  of  it  at  all,  the  object  being  to  prevent  its  falling 
into  my  hands.  Jn  this  state  of  things,  your  interposition,  by  a  positive 
order,  is  indispensable,  if  it  be  intended  to  afford  me  an  opportunity  of 
illustrating  facts  already  proved  before  the  commissioners,  by  a  reference 
to  the  official  letters  of  Mr.  Hoyt  corresponding  with  these  facts,  and 
tracing  the  transactions  of  the  collector  to  the  real  motive  in  which  they 
originated. 

If  such  an  order  is  not  given,  I  have  reason  to  doubt  whether  the  com- 
missioner who  has  the  four  volumes  will  deliver  them  ;  and  even  with 
such  an  order  it  might  be  doubted,  as  that  individual,  who  had  locked  up 
in  his  private  trunk  most  of  the  valuable  documents  belonging  to  the 
former  commission,  said,  in  presence  of  all  the  persons  attached  to  the 
commission,  after  our  return  to  New  York,  that,  "  if  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  had  ordered  him  to  deliver  up  these  papers,  he  would  not 
have  obeyed  it." 

I  draw  your  attention  to  this  subject  particularly,  to  show  you  the  many 
embarrassments  which  have  been  thrown  in  the  way  to  protract  the  con- 
clusion of  my  duties  as  one  member  of  the  commission,  and  respectfully 
to  ask  that  they  may  be  removed,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  correspondence 
of  Mr.  Hoyt.  I  could  make  a  very  satisfactoiy  report  from  the  evidence, 
without  the  aid  of  the  disclosures  made  by  Mr.  Hoyt  himself;  but  it  is 
evident  that  these  disclosures,  connected  with  the  evidence,  would  render 
the  whole  subject  more  clear  and  conclusive. 

I  have  understood,  though  I  have  received  no  such  communication 
officially,  that  the  expense  attending  the  commission  was  closed  by  your 
order  some  days  past.  This  step  I  had  the  honor  to  recommend  soon 
after  Mr.  Bradley  and  Col.  Steuart  left  this  city,  for  reasons  then  and 
and  since  made  known  to  you.  If  the  order  is  to  be  enforced  in  respect 
to  all  the  commissioners,  1  should  be  glad  to  be  informed  of  it.  Mr. 
Dwight  is  expected  to-morrow',  and  if  possible  I  will  complete  my  report 
in  the  coming  week,  and  forthwith  return  to  Washington. 

i  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEO.  POINDEXTER. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


291 


George  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

New  York,  January  11,  1S42. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  7th  instant  was  received  on  yesterday.  I  do  not 
wonder  that  the  President  should  desire  the  report  of  the  commissioners 
to  be  prepared  and  submitted  as  soon  as  possible  ;  and  whatever  may  be 
his  anxiety  on  this  subject,  it  cannot  surpass  my  own  ;  for,  to  say  the  truth, 
I  am  heartily  sick  of  this  business. 

The  lenor  of  your  letter,  however,  leads  me  to  infer  that  the  President 
is  not  informed  of  the  multiplied  embarrassments  thrown  in  my  way,  to 
delay  the  completion  of  my  report ;  although  some  of  them,  of  no  small  im- 
port, were  in  progress  at  the  date  of  your  letter,  and  were  not  overcome 
without  great  difficulty. 

I  beg  you  to  assure  the  President,  if  he  needs  any  assurance  to  that 
effect,  that  I  shall  neither  trifle  frith  my  own  duty  to  the  Government  and 
country,  nor  with  the  confidence  which  he  has  reposed  in  me ;  but  I  must 
be  permitted  to  execute  the  trust  according  to  my  best  judgment,  and  to 
hasten  my  labors  to  a  conclusion  as  speedily  as  untoward  circumstances 
and  a  just  regard  to  the  public  interest  and  my  own  honor  will  enable  me. 
Is  the  President  acquainted  with  the  fact  that  I  am  incurring  heavy  ex- 
penses, out  of  my  own  private  purse,  by  remaining  in  New  York  to  pre- 
pare my  report ;  and  that,  in  doing  so,  I  am  actuated  by  no  other  motive 
than  to  give  a  clear  exposition  of  the  condition  of  this  custom-house,  "past 
and  present/'  so  that  he  may  stand  justified  in  the  eyes  of  the  American 
people  for  having  instituted  this  commission,  and  more  especially  for  its 
renewal  after  the  first  investigation  had  closed  ? 

What  selfish  motive  can  possibly  be  ascribed  to  me  in  spending  my  own 
time  and  money  in  fulfilling  a  task  so  unpleasant  and  thankless  as  the  ex- 
posure of  individual  frauds  on  the  Treasury  and  the  malpractices  of  men 
in  office,  whose  influence  overshadows  my  own  ? 

I  shall  indeed  rejoice  when  the  last  word  in  my  report  is  written :  and 
now  that  I  am  put  in  possession,  for  the  first  time,  of  Hoyt's  correspond- 
ence with  the  Treasury  Department,  which  was  so  improperly  removed 
from  the  room  of  the  commissioners,  I  shall  lose  not  a  moment  in  bring- 
ing my  labors  to  a  close.  I  have  been  delayed  ten  days  by  the  absence  of 
this  correspondence. 

As  to  conferring  with  Colonel  Steuart,  I  have  had  enough  of  that.  Mr. 
Bradley  has  had  no  connexion  with  the  investigation  until  the  return  of 
the  commissioners,  and,  so  far  as  his  knowledge  on  the  subject  extends,  I 
have  no  doubt  that  he  would  candidly  impart  to  me  his  views,  without  re- 
gard to  personal  considerations.  I  shall  submit  my  report  to  him,  before  I 
offer  it  at  the  Treasury  Department. 

Without  entering  further  into  this  matter,  I  will  add  only  an  earnest  re- 
quest, that,  before  any  steps  may  be  taken  by  the  President  in  relation  to 
this  investigation,  he  will  seek  information  from  some  other  quarter  than 
the  New  York  custom-house  or  the  pledged  advocates  of  the  present  col- 
lector. It  would  give  me  great  pain,  after  all  the  sacrifices  I  have  made 
in  the  performance  of  this  duty,  by  the  particular  desire  of  the  President, 
to  be  brought,  by  the  insidious  intrigues  of  others,  into  collision  with  my 
old  friend  President  Tyler,  to  serve  whom,  both  in  public  and  in  private 
life,  there  is  no  sacrifice  which  I  have  not  at  all  times  been  prepared  to 
make. 

7* 


292 


Rep.  No.  669. 


But  of  one  thing  you  may  assure  the  President,  that  I  shall  fearlessly 
and  faithfully  perform  my  duty,  without  regard  to  consequences. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  POINDEXTEK. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


G  forge  Poindexter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

New  York,  January  23,  1842. 
My  Dear  Sir:  Your  favor,  post-marked  January  21st,  is  this  moment 
received.  The  books  to  which  you  refer  were  delivered  to  me  by  Mr. 
D wight,  and  are  now  in  my  possession.  The  delay  which  has  taken  place 
in  the  preparation  of  my  report  was  in  a  great  measure  occasioned  by  the 
act  of  Col.  Steuart,  in  taking  these  books  to  Washington,  on  his  own  re- 
sponsibility. They  have  been  useful  to  me,  and  perhaps  the  use  I  make  of 
them  may  enlighten  the  Government  on  some  of  the  abominable  corrup- 
tions committed  by  Hoyt  at  this  custom-house,  with  the  knowledge  and  ap- 
probation of  Mr.  Woodbury  and  the  whole  Government  at  Washington. 

I  do  not  think  that  it  is  at  all  incumbent  on  you  to  pay  the  least  atten- 
tion to  the  letter  of  Mr.  Hoyt,  on  this  or  any  other  subject,  as  h'e  is  regard- 
ed on  all  sides  as  the  most  degraded  man  in  New  York — a  peculator  of  the 
worst  description.  Under  what  color  of  right  can  he  open  a  correspond- 
ence with  you  on  the  subject  of  these  books,  when  he  has,  more  than  six 
months  since,  expressly  stated  to  the  collector  of  this  port  (Mr.  Curtis)  that 
he  had  no  claim  to  them,  and  only  desired  occasionally  to  look  into  them 
for  particular  letters.  There  are  some  curious  facts,  showing  collusion  be- 
tween Curtis  and  Hoyt  about  these  books,  which  will  be  noticed  in  my 
report.  We  shall  keep  them  only  a  few  days  longer,  and  then  they  will 
be  delivered  to  Mr.  Curtis,  which  is  about  the  same  thing  as  if  they  were 
delivered  to  Mr.  Hoyt. 

I  take  occasion,  while  answering  your  letter,  to  say  to  you  that  some 
small  expenses  have  been  incurred  by  myself,  acting  separately  from  the 
other  commissioners,  in  clerk  hire,  stationery,  &c,  and  you  will  greatly 
oblige  me  by  sending  me  your  authority  to  approve  the  bills  (separately) 
for  payment  at  the  custom-house. 

I  expect  to  return  in  the  course  of  this  week,  even  if  I  should  not  have 
entirely  finished  my  report.  While  it  is  copying,  I  can  complete  any  views 
which  may  remain  unfinished.  At  all  events,  I  shall  return  to  Washing- 
ton on  or  before  Saturday  next.  I  should  suppose  it  somewhat  irregular 
to  send  into  Congress  a  partial  report  from  the  commissioners,  when  the 
whole  will  be  ready  in  so  short  a  time. 

Col.  Steuart  seems  to  be  very  restless  to  have  his  war  with  Judge  Betts 
promulgated  in  the  shape  of  an  official  manifesto.  He  may  be  gratified  in 
oue  week  more,  if  he  will  have  patience.  It  is  about  an  equal  fight,  and  I 
take  very  little  interest  in  the  result. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  friend  and  obedient 
servant. 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


293 


George  Poindexter  to  the  President. 

Washington,  February  5,  1842. 

My  Dear  Sir  :  Understanding  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  that 
my  presence  was  very  much  desired  in  Washington,  I  determined  to  leave 
New  York  before  my  report  was  fully  completed;  but  I  have  advanced 
so  far  that,  in  a  few  days,  the  whole  of  my  views,  or  a  condensed  analysis 
of  the  testimony,  will  be  ready  for  delivery.  The  original  testimony  has 
been  deposited  at  the  Treasury  Department  some  time  since.  I  have  made 
two  or  three  efforts  to  pay  my  respects  to  you  in  person  without  success, 
and  feel  some  diffidence  in  obtruding  myself  upon  you  without  a  special 
appointment,  when  I  may  be  assured  of  an  audience  without  intrusion, 
and  without  interruption  to  your  more  important  duties. 

Can  you,  in  some  form  or  other,  let  me  know  when  I  may  wait  on  you  ? 

I  shall  be  most  happy  to  present  and  read  to  you,  if  you  shall  have  leisure 
for  that  purpose,  my  report,  so  far  as  it  has  gone,  and  the  residue  when  it 
may  be  completed,  and  I  shall  be  still  more  gratified  if  these  views  shall 
meet  your  approval. 

The  public  anxiety,  both  in  and  out  of  Congress,  to  have  this  report  pub- 
lished, appears  to  be  very  great,  arising  partly  from  curiosity  and  partly 
from  a  deep  solicitude,  which  has  been  repeatedly  expressed  to  me,  to  ob- 
tain my  exposition  of  the  affairs,  past  and  present,  of  the  New  York 
custom-house. 

I  fear  that  the  expectations  which  have  been  in  some  manner  created, 
of  the  value  of  this  document,  may  be  disappointed ;  but  I  promise  you, 
and  all  others  who  may  take  an  interest  in  these  matters,  that  in  all  things 
I  shall  represent  the  evidence  given  before  the  commissioners  honestly, 
candidly,  and  fairly;  and,  so  far  as  the  officers  of  the  customs  may  have  been 
implicated,  1  shall  "  nothing  extenuate,  or  set  down  aught  in  malice. 99 

Accept  assurances  of  my  best  wishes  and  friendly  salutations. 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 

His  Excellency  John  Tyler, 

President  of  the  United  States. 


rVhe  President  to  George  Poindexter. 

Washington,  February  8,  1842. 

Dear  Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  5th  is  before  me,  and  I  can  but  express 
my  regret  that  I  should  have  been  denied  the  pleasure  of  seeing  you  upon 
your  last  call ;  but  my  time  at  the  moment  was  occupied  by  consultations 
with  some  of  the  members  of  the  Cabinet. 

As  to  your  report,  I  anticipate  much  pleasure  and  information  in  perus- 
ing it,  when  it  shall  be  finished.  I  fear,  however,  that  1  cannot  give  time 
in  the  day  to  its  examination,  as  every  moment  I  have  during  the  day  is 
occupied ;  but  I  will  take  it  with  me  to  my  chamber  at  night. 

The  Congress  are  in  motion,  and  have  been  for  some  time,  in  relation  to 
your  investigations ;  and  I  have  before  me  this  morning  a  resolution  adopt- 
ed by  the  House  upon  that  subject.  I  am  pleased,  therefore,  to  learn  from 
you  that  the  report  will  be  completed  in  the  course  of  two  or  three  days. 

Accept  assurances  of  regard. 

JOHN  TYLER. 

Governor  Poindexter. 


294 


Rep.  No.  669. 


George  Poindexter  to  the  President. 

Washington,  February  9,  1842, 
My  Dear  Sir  :  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  communication  of 
the  8th,  in  reply  to  mine  of  the  5th  instant.  Your  regret  at.  the  failure  of 
my  effort  to  obtain  an  interview  with  you  immediately  after  my  return 
from  New  York  cannot  be  greater  than  my  own.  I  could  have  explained 
to  you  more  fully  the  causes  which  have  intervened  to  delay  the  comple- 
tion of  my  report  in  a  personal  interview  than  in  a  hasty  correspondence, 
You  do  not  speak  of  such  an  interview  as  a  matter  desired  by  you  at  this 
time ;  and  your  silence  on  that  subject  leaves  me  to  infer  that  you  do  not 
consider  it  necessaiy  on  your  own  part ;  but,  if  I  am  mistaken  in  this  infer- 
ence, I  should  be  most  happy  to  be  corrected. 

You  are  pleased  to  express  the  auticpation  of  "much  pleasure  and  infor- 
mation in  perusing  my  report,  when  it  shall  be  finished  but  your  time  is 
so  continually  occupied  during  the  day,  that  you  suggest  the  idea  of  taking 
it  with  you  in  your  chamber  at  night.  I  hope  you  may  not  be  disappoint- 
ed in  the  estimate  you  place  on  the  value  of  this  document ;  it  will  cover 
the  whole  ground  of  our  examinations  into  the  frauds  and  malpractices 
which  have  prevailed  and  do  still  prevail  at  the  New  York  custom-house,, 
and  which,  in  my  judgment,  ought  to  be  reformed.  But  I  cannot  flatter 
myself  that  the  benefits  resulting  from  these  labors  will  correspond  with  the 
hopes  which  I  entertained  in  the  commencement. 

Causes  have  sprung  up,  well  calculated  to  dampen  my  expectations  when 
I  undertook  the  arduous  and  delicate  duties  of  investigating  the  official 
conduct  of  the  officers  of  the  customs  at  the  port  of  New  York  ;  but  what- 
ever can  be  done  to  bring  these  matters  fairly  before  the  Government  and 
people  of  this  country  shall  be  fearlessly  and  faithfully  attempted,  in  clos- 
ing my  connexion  with  the  commission  which  you  instituted  for  the  pur- 
pose. These  causes  I  would  greatly  prefer  explaining  to  you  privately, 
rather  than  to  be  compelled  to  bring  them  before  the  public  gaze.  The  alter- 
native is  under  your  control,  and  will  be  conformed  to  your  wishes,  when 
made  known. 

You  inform  me  that  44  Congress  are  in  motion,  and  have  been  for  some 
time,  in  relation  to  your  [my]  investigations;"  and  that  a  resolution  is  be- 
fore you,  adopted  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  that  subject,  and 
therefore  are  pleased  to  learn  that  my  report  will  be  completed  in  two  or 
three  days.  The  resolution  of  which  you  speak  has  no  relation  to  my  pro- 
ceedings, or  of  the  other  commissioners,  as  no  call  is  made  for  the  evidence, 
but  simply  for  the  power  under  which  the  commission  was  created,  and 
the  expenses  attending  it,  and  the  fund  out  of  which  they  have  been  paid. 
The  answer  to  this  resolution  must  of  course  be  confined  to  the  call,  and 
will  not  embrace  my  report  or  that  of  my  colleagues,  or  the  evidence  taken 
by  the  commissioners  ;  when  these  shall  be  called  for,  I  am  ready  to  furnish 
my  opinions  on  all  the  subjects  brought  before  the  commission  at  any 
moment. 

I  am  aware  that  misrepresentations,  intentionally  made  to  mislead  you, 
have  emanated  from  the  guilty  custom-house  officers  and  their  accomplices, 
and  fear  that,  to  a  certain  extent,  they  have  been  successful.  This  I  deeply 
regret,  because  harmony  between  the  appointing  power  and  the  agent  is 
indispensable  to  give  effect  to  the  investigations,  when  they  shall  be  commu- 
nicated to  Congress,  and  through  that  body  to  the  public. 


Kep.  No.  669. 


295 


You  must  be  sensible  that,  without  union  of  action,  no  beneficial  results 
can  be  expected  from  any  disclosures,  made  under  the  commission,  of  cor- 
ruption in  the  collection  of,  and  peculation  on,  the  public  revenue  received 
at  the  custom-house  in  New  York,  where  two-thirds  of  the  imposts  of  the 
country  are  collected.  You  cannot  expect  that  those  who  hold  office,  and 
whose  conduct  forms  the  subject  of  investigation,  will  deal  candidly  with 
you  in  their  representations  of  that  conduct,  or  speak  favorably  of  any  com- 
missioner whom  they  cannot  bend  to  their  own  purposes.  Fidelity  in  the 
agent  to  examine  into  their  official  acts  is  the  worst  crime,  in  their  estima- 
tion, which  such  agent  could  commit.  But  however  it  may  be  in  their 
power  to  bring  to  their  aid  influences  which  overshadow  my  own,  I  can- 
not be  deterred  from  the  independent  attitude  which  I  have  occupied,  and 
shall  continue  to  occupy,  in  placing  their  conduct  in  bold  relief  before  the 
Government  and  country,  whatever  may  be  the  responsibility  or  personal 
injury  I  may  incur  in  the  performance  of  this  high  duty. 

The  idea  that  I  have  unnecessarily  delayed  a  report  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  by  any  one  of  the  commissioners,  is  utterly  fallacious  and 
unfounded,  which  I  am  ready  to  verify,  and  shall  verify,  when  it  may  be- 
come proper  to  do  so.  I  find  in  a  letter  written  from  this  city  by  a  corres- 
pondent of  a  newspaper  in  New  York,  who  is  not  unknown  to  you,  the 
following  paragraph  :  "  Old  Pains  is  expected  here  in  a  day  or  two,  and 
then  we  shall  learn  something  abjut  the  custom-house  investigation.  Mr. 
Steuart  has  been  anxious  to  make  his  report,  but  Mr.  Poindexter  has  the 
books  and  papers  in  New  York."  This  statement  is  utterly  false,  come 
from  what  quarter  it  may.  I  have  never,  at  any  time  since  the  commission 
opened  in  New  York,  had  possession  of  a  single  original  paper  appertain- 
ing to  the  proceedings  of  the  board  for  one  single  moment,  otherwise  than 
as  I  had  a  right  of  access  to  them  in  the  hands  of  the  secretary  of  the  board. 

I  enclose  you  a  copy  of  an  order  made  by  the  commissioners,  before 
Messrs.  Steuart  and  Bradley  left  New  York,  which  placed  all  the  books,  pa- 
pers, and  records  of  the  commission  in  the  custody  of  T.  L.  Thruston  and 
George  Wood,  secretaries,  to  be  delivered  at  the  Treasury  Department  to 
the  commissioners.  This  order  was  executed,  and  the  only  books  or  pa- 
pers in  my  possession  at  New  York  were  copies  of  originals,  which  were 
safely  delivered  at  the  Department.  The  paragraph  of  the  letter  above 
quoted  is  a  wanton  violation  of  truth,  and  is  of  a  character  corresponding 
with  every  thing  else  which  has  appeared  in  that  print,  coming  through  the 
same  channel.  I  have  had  no  other  object  in  view,  from  the  commence- 
ment of  this  investigation  down  to  the  present  time,  than  the  public  inter- 
ests and  your  fame  as  the  Chief  Magistrate  of  the  nation. 

I  have  made  great  personal  sacrifices,  both  of  feeling  and  interest,  in  the 
discharge  of  my  duties.  The  compensation  has  fallen  short  of  my  actual 
expenditures,  and  my  business  in  the  West  has  suffered  to  an  extent  which 
I  cannot  now  estimate  with  any  degree  of  accuracy.  But  all  this  I  should 
set  down  as  nothing,  if  my  labors  should  result  in  purifying  that  kennel 
of  corruption  and  fraud,  the  New  York  custom  house.  To  accomplish  this 
object  tnoroughly,  the  Government  would  be  gainer  if  it  were  done  at  the 
cost  of  a  half  million  of  dollars.  But  I  confess,  looking  at  past  events, 
my  mind  despairs  of  reaching  a  consummation  so  devoutly  to  be  wished. 
It  is  not  my  intention  to  press  this  correspondence  further,  by  asking  any 
reply  to  this  communication.  I  should  not  have  written  a  line  to  you  on 
the  subject,  had  you  invited  me  to  a  personal  conference  in  relation  to  it. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


It  is,  however,  due  to  myself  and  to  you  that  your  mind  should,  in  some 
form  or  other,  be  disabused  of  the  volume  of  premeditated  falsehood  which 
I  know  has  been  communicated  to  you,  to  withdraw  from  me  that  confi- 
dence which  has  so  long  subsisted  between  us,  and  thereby  defeat  the  great 
ends  for  which  you  caused  the  commission  of  investigation  to  be  instituted. 
I  will  add,  because  it  is  strictly  true,  that  there  is  not  in  existence  a  man  more 
sincerely  and  disinterestedly  your  friend  than  myself.  I  do  not  deal  in  de- 
ceitful flattery  to  recommend  myself  to  any  favor  in  your  gift,  for  I  seek 
none,  and  have  sought  none,  at  your  hands  ;  but  when  all  the  devices  put 
in  requisition  by  such  men  as  Curtis  and  Webster,  to  destroy  me  in  your 
estimation,  shall  be  detected  and  exposed,  you  will  find  that  there  is  more 
value  in  unpleasant  truths  than  in  deceptions  practised  under  the  guise  of 
friendship,  which  never  fail  to  end  in  cruel  disappointment. 
Accept  assurances  of  my  high  respect  and  consideration. 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 


The  President  to  George  Poindexter 

Washington,  February  11,  1842. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  must  express  my  surprise  at  some  of  the  remarks  contained 
in  yours  of  yesterday;  more  especially  the  apprehensions  you  express  that 
official  harmony  between  the  appointing  power  and  the  agent  (myself  and 
you)  may  have  suffered  interruption  through  representations  made  to  me 
by  "  guilty  custom-house  officers  and  their  accomplices."  I  leave  the  re- 
mark without  comment. 

Nor  can  I  do  less  than  express  my  regret  that  you  have  found  it  necessa- 
ry to  couple  the  name  of  Mr.  Webster  with  a  conspiracy  "  to  destroy  you 
iu  my  estimation a  procedure  which,  if  it  have  existence  in  any  quarter, 
has  not  come  to  my  knowledge.  Certain  it  is,  that  Mr.  Webster  has  never 
uttered  one  word  of  disparagement  of  you  to  me,  nor  am  I  aware  of  his 
having  been  in  the  slightest  degree  connected  with  any  matter  to  your  pre- 
judice ;  and  I  submit  if  it  be  not  a  poor  compliment  to  myself  to  suppose 
me  easily  deceived  by  any  cabal,  or  conspiracy  of  "  guilty  custom-house 
officers,"  or  any  others,  even  if  one  existed.  Be  perfectly  assured  that 
there  exists  no  cabal  at  this  end  of  the  avenue,  of  which  I  am  cognizant, 
of  any  sort  or  description. 

The  commission  on  which,  at  my  own  request,  you  and  others  consented 
to  serve,  was  instituted,  and  the  report  of  the  commissioners  is  now  wanted 
by  me,  fur  my  own  information. 

I  do  not  doubt  but  that  it  will  contain  many  suggestions  with  regard  to 
the  custom-houses  and  the  mode  of  transacting  business,  most  worthy  to  be 
recommended  by  me  to  Congress.  And  should  it  bring  to  my  knowledge 
any  facts  implicating  those  now  in  office  to  an  extent  or  upon  grounds  requir- 
ing the  executive  action  in  regard  to  them,  I  shall,  without  any  prompting 
by  Congress,  who  have  rightfully  nothing  to  do  with  it,  discharge  my  duty 
to  the  country  without  fear.  That  I  have  for  a  considerable  time  most 
anxiously  desired  the  report  to  be  made,  I  will  not  deny.  Whether,  when 
made,  I  shall  deem  it  best  to  communicate  the  entire  report  to  Congress, 
or  otherwise  make  it  public,  or  content  myself  with-  adopting  its  recom- 


i 


Rep.  No.  669. 


297 


mendations,  and  urging  them  upon  the  deliberations  of  Congress,  will  be 
for  my  own  decision,  as  also  will  be  the  time  and  occasion  for  making  it. 

I  take  leave,  in  conclusion,  to  say  that  the  paragraph  extracted  from  a 
New  York  newspaper  is,  for  the  first  time,  brought  under  my  eye  by  your 
letter.  Had  I  seen  it  earlier,  it  would  scarcely  have  arrested  my  attention. 
I  do  not  suffer  myself  to  be  disturbed,  or  my  opinion  to  be  formed,  by  any 
thing  appearing  in  the  newspapers. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

JOHN  TYLER. 

GOV.  PoiNDEXTER. 


George  Po  index  ter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Washington,  March  23,  1842. 
Sir  :  The  commissioners,  at  their  late  sitting  in  New  York,  made  an 
order  that  the  original  papers  of  the  commission  should  be  given  into  the 
custody  of  Thomas  L.  Thruston  and  George  Wood,  secretaries  of  the 
board,  to  be  by  them  safely  kept  and  delivered  to  the  commissioners,  at  the 
city  of  Washington,  subject  to  the  inspection  of  each  commissioner,  from 
time  to  time. 

It  appears  that  the  papers  of  the  first  commission  were  returned  by 
Messrs.  Kelley  and  Steuart  to  the  Treasury  Department.  The  papers  and 
records  of  the  second  commission  were  brought  on  by  the  secretaries  to 
whom  they  were  intrusted,  and  remained  in  the  custody  of  Mr.  Thruston 
until  some  time  past,  when  they  were  taken  possession  of  by  Mr.  Steuart, 
a  member  of  the  board,  and  are  now  at  his  own  room.  I  requested  the 
secretary  to  call  on  Mr.  Steuart  for  the  record  sent  in  by  the  clerk  of  the 
district  court  of  the  United  States  for  the  southern  district  of  New  York, 
since  Mr.  Steuart  and  Mr.  Bradley  left  that  city.  Mr.  D wight  handed 
the  record  to  Mr.  Steuart,  for  his  use  and  information,  supposing  that  at 
all  times  it  would  be  accessible  to  the  other  commissioners.  I  am  informed 
by  Mr.  Thruston  that  he  made  application  to  Mr.  Steuart,  as  I  had  re- 
quested him,  for  this  paper,  which  was  refused  :  and  the  application  [has 
been]  renewed  two  or  three  times  since,  with  the  like  result.  Having  some 
days  past  reached  that  part  of  my  report  which  required  an  examination  of 
the  costs  and  fees  of  the  district  attorney,  paid  out  of  the  public  Treasury, 
as  well  as  such  as  were  taxed  on  the  defendants,  I  am  in  particular  want 
of  the  document  above  mentioned,  and  shall  be  delayed  until  I  receive  it. 
There  being  no  probability  that,  it  will  be  delivered  to  the  Secretary  with- 
out your  authority,  I  respectfully  request  that  you  will  give  an  order  to 
Mr.  Thruston  to  receive  it.  The  paper  will  be  returned  to  the  original  file 
as  soon  as  I  have  looked  into  some  of  its  details. 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  respectfully,  &c. 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 

Hon.  Walter  Forward. 


298 


Rep.  No.  669. 


CORRESPONDENCE  BETWEEN  GEORGE  POINDEXTER  WILLIAM  A.  BRADLEY, 
AND  WILLIAM  M.  STEUART. 


Office  of  the  Commission, 

Washington,  December  13,  1841. 
Dear  Sir  :  The  commission  was  opened  here,  according  to  the  resolution 
of  adjournment,  on  Wednesday  last,  and  the  undersigned  have  been  at  their 
post  to  the  present  time,  but  have  not  been  able  to  do  any  business  of 
material  importance,  owing  to  the  absence  of  our  books  and  papers. 

Your  presence  here  at  an  early  day  is  greatly  desired  ;  but,  if  you  are 
detained  by  indisposition,  we  have  to  request  that  you  will  immediately 
forward  to  us  the  books  and  papers  by  Mr.  Thruston,  retaining  the 
originals  or  copies  of  such  as  you  may  have  occasion  for. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

WILLIAM  M.  STEUART. 
WILLIAM  A.  BRADLEY. 

Hon.  George  Poindexter. 


New  York,  December  15,  1841. 

Gentlemen:  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  13th  instant,  I 
have  the  honor  to  enclose  you  copies  of  se  eral  orders  made  by  the  board  ; 
which,  as  I  hold  them  to  be  binding  on  me  until  they  are  revoked,  deprive 
me  altogether  of  the  custody  of  the  evidence  and  other  papers  appertaining 
to  the  former  commission  as  well  as  that  of  which  we  are  now  members. 

I  am  making  all  possible  progress  in  the  completion  of  my  report,  in 
which  I  can  advance  with  more  speed  and  accuracy  here  than  at  Wash- 
ington. 

The  order  to  complete  the  record  of  testimony  taken  by  the  former  board 
of  commissioners,  made  some  time  since,  has  not  yet  been  fully  complied 
with  by  the  Secretary  and  his  assistants.  They  have  been  engaged  in  this 
work,  and  are  now  occupied  in  completing  it.  When  this  is  done,  there 
can  be  no  objection  to  the  transfer  of  the  papers  to  Washington,  reserving 
copies  for  my  own  use,  which  will  be  delivered  with  the  report. 

I  take  this  occasion  to  state  that  the  correspondence  obtained  from  the 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  by  Mr.  Kelley  and  myself,  soon  after  we  opened 
the  commission,  relative  to  seizures  and  compromises,  to  which  it  will  be 
necessary  for  me  to  refer,  is  not  among  the  papers  directed  by  your  order 
to  be  delivered  to  the  Secretary  ;  as  also  the  deposition  of  Mr.  Huntington, 
and  the  recent  correspondence  of  Ogden  Hoffman,  and  also  that  of  the  col- 
lector Hoyt  and  late  district  attorney,  relative  to  the  cases  of  De  Casse  & 
Miege  and  La  Chaise  &  Fouche,  are  missing.  If  these  papers,  or  any  of 
them,  can  be  furnished  to  me  from  Washington,  you  will  not  only  oblige 
me,  but  enable  the  secretary  to  fulfil  the  order  made  on  him  by  the  com- 
missioners, which  without  them  he  cannot  do. 

Hoping  to  meet  you  in  a  few  days,  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  respectfully, 
your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 
Messrs.  Steuart  and  Bradley,  Commissioners,  #c. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


299 


Commissioners'  Office, 
Washington,  December  IS,  1841. 

Dear  Sir:  We  had  this  morning  the  pleasure  to  receive  your  favor  of 
the  lbth  instant. 

As  you  give  us  reason  to  expect  the  pleasure  to  see  you  here  within  a 
few  days,  we  deem  it  unnecessary  to  send  you  any  papers  in  our  possession, 
as  they  would  probably  cross  you  on  the  road. 

All  the  correspondence  relating  to  seizures  and  compromises,  obtained 
from  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  by  Mr.  Kelley  and  yourself,  were  left  in 
New  York  with  the  secretary.  We  know  nothing  of  the  papers  relating 
to  the  cases  of  De  Casse  &  Miege  and  La  Chaise  &  Fouche,  unless  they 
were  left  with  the  correspondence  relating  to  seizures,  &c. 

By  a  copy  of  one  of  the  "  orders"  you  sent  us,  it  appears  that  the  papers 
belonging  to  the  commission  were  to  be  delivered  to  the  commissioners, 
upon  their  meeting  at  the  Treasury  Department  in  Washington.  This 
-order  has  not  been  complied  with,  and  we  have  to  request,  if  you  are  likely 
to  be  detained  in  New  York  after  Monday  next,  that  you  will  send  us  by 
Mr.  Thruston  all  the  original  papers  belonging  to  the  commission. 
Your  most  obedient  servants, 

WILLIAM  M.  STEUART. 
WILLIAM  A.  BRADLEY. 

Hon.  George  Poindexter. 


George  Poindexter  to  Messrs.  Steuart  and  Bradley. 

New  York,  December  20,  1841. 
Your  letter  of  the  18th  instant  informs  me  that,  as  you  expected  my  re- 
turn in  a  few  days,  you  deemed  it  unnecessary  to  send  me  any  papers  in 
your  possession,  as  they  would  probably  cross  me  on  the  road.  In  the 
next  paragraph  of  your  letter  you  inform  me  that  all  the  papers  enume- 
rated in  my  former  letter  as  not  being  on  the  files  of  the  Secretary  were 
left  in  New  York,  or,  in  other  words,  that  they  are  not  in  your  possession, 
and  that  you  have  no  knowledge  of  them,  except  the  deposition  of  Hun- 
tington, of  which  you  say  nothing.  I  am  unable,  therefore,  to  understand 
what  papers  you  allude  to,  which, for  the  reasons  assigned,  you  have  "deem- 
ed it  unnecessary  to  send  me."  In  your  reference  to  the  order  respecting  the 
records  and  papers  of  the  commission,  you  state  that  "they  were  to 
be  delivered  to  the  commissioners  upon  their  meeting  at  the  Treasury 
Department  in  Washington;"  and,  further,  that  "this  order  has  not  been 
complied  with."  I  presume  you  do  not  mean  to  say  that  I  was  to  deliver 
those  papers  and  records  to  you  at  the  Treasury  Department,  although  the 
sentence  in  your  letter  might  well  bear  that  construction.  I  enclose  you, 
again,  a  copy  of  that  order,  which,  acting  separately,  I  had  no  power  to 
control,  by  which  it  will  be  seen  that  you  have  omitted,  in  your  reference 
to  it,  the  most  material  parts,  relating  to  the  custody  and  delivery  of  these 
papers  and  records.  First :  They  were  "  to  be  handed  over  to  Thomas  L. 
Thruston  and  George  Wood,  secretaries  to  the  commissioners,  or  one  of 
them,  who  shall  be  responsible  for  the  safe  delivery  of  said  evidence  and 
8* 


300 


Sep.  No.  669. 


other  papers  to  the  commissioners,  upon  their  meeting  at  the  Treasury 
Department  in  the  city  of  Washington." 

I  take  occasion  to  repeat,  what  I  stated  to  you  in  my  former  letter,  that, 
acting  alone* I  have  no  power  over  these  papers  and  records,  unless  a  ma- 
jority of  the  board  shall  revoke  the  order  above  referred  to ;  and  to  add, 
that  I  have  not  been  in  the  commissioners'  room,  on  business,  since  I  left 
it,  on  the  receipt  of  new  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
changing  the  mode  of  examining  witnesses ;  that  I  have  not  touched  one 
single  paper  belonging  to  the  commission,  and  that  the  secretary  has  been 
occupied  in  the  discharge  of  his  official  duties,  required  of  him  by  the  order 
of  the  board,  without  the  slightest  interruption  from  me.  I  do  not  stand  in 
need  of  the  presence  of  the  secretary  or  the  papers,  and  I  am  informed 
that  he  is  now  arranging  his  affairs  so  as  to  leave  here  forthwith.  The 
sooner  the  better  for  me.  On  the  arrival  of  Mr.  Thruston,  I  beg  that  you 
will  not  delay  one  moment  in  closing  the  commission  on  my  account,  as 
my  views  of  the  testimony,  being  my  own,  will  not  require  your  revision; 
and  whenever  you  conclude  to  adjourn  sine  die,  you  have  my  vote  in  fa- 
vor of  it. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 


George  Poindexter  to  William  A.  Bradley. 

New  York,  December  19,  1841. 

Dear  Sir  :  Since  the  date  of  my  letter  to  yourself  and  Colonel  Steuart. 
in  answer  to  yours  respecting  the  records  and  papers  of  the  commissioners, 
I  have  advised  Mr.  Thruston  to  proceed  with  such  papers  as  were  placed 
in  his  possession  to  Washington,  and  he  will  probably  leave  here  to-morrow. 
When  the  order  transferring  to  the  secretaries  all  these  papers,  whether 
connected  with  the  last  or  present  commission,  was  passed,  I  am  informed 
by  the  two  secretaries,  Mr.  Thruston  and  Mr.  Wood,  that  they  made  appli- 
cation to  Colonel  Steuart  for  such  as  might  be  in  his  possession,  in  order  to 
enable  them  to  make  out  a  schedule,  as  they  were  required  to  do  by  the 
order.  They  state  that  Colonel  Steuart  assured  them  that  he  had  not  a 
single  paper  in  his  possession  appertaining  to  either  commission,  since 
which  it  has  been  discovered  that  depositions  and  correspondence  on 
various  interesting  subjects  are  not  to  be  found  on  the  files,  and  both 
copies  and  originals  have  by  some  means  been  taken  away. 

Relying  on  the  statement  of  the  secretaries,  in  respect  to  the  assurance 
given  to  them  by  Colonel  Steuart,  I  cannot  presume  that  he  is  in  possession 
of  them.  I  cannot  proceed  in  my  report  without  them,  not  having  a  clear 
recollection  of  their  contents;  but  if,  by  some  mistake,  they  have  been  taken 
to  Washington,  it  would  afford  me  an  opportunity  to  be  more  accurate  in 
my  reference  to  them,  if  Mr.  Wood  could  be  authorized  to  make  copies  and 
forward  them  to  me  in  a  day  or  two. 

I  am  making  considerable  progress  in  my  report,  and  shall  be  enabled 
to  present  it  at  the  Treasury  Department  long  before  it  will  be  wanted  by 
Congress.  By  remaining  here  I  have  incurred  no  additional  expense  which 
would  not  have  been  incurred  at  Washington,  and  the  facilities  of  hasten- 
ing my  report  are  much  greater  than  I  could  have  had  at  the  seat  of  Gov- 
ernment.   I  presume  the  great  object  of  the  President  must  be  accuracy 


Doc.  No.  669. 


301 


rather  than  haste  in  presenting  the  various  topics  which  we  have  investi- 
gated to  the  Government.  The  labor  is  very  great,  but  I  shall  overcome 
all  difficulties,  and  I  trust  satisfy  boih  the  President  and  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  with  the  analysis  which  1  shall  make  of  the  testimony,  and  the 
conclusions  which  I  may  draw  from  that  testimony. 

Mr.  Curtis,  the  collector,  has  refused  to  pay  the  contingent  expenses,  as 
certified  by  the  whole  commission,  and  a  correspondence  has  arisen  be- 
tween himself  and  Mr.  Thruston,  the  secretary,  a  copy  of  which  will  be 
sent  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

The  commission  under  which  we  acted,  and  the  instructions  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury,  constitute  us  the  sole  judges  of  those  contingent 
expenses ;  they  are  not  subject  in  any  manner  to  the  revision  of  the  collector. 
But  his  conduct  on  this  occasion  betray j  a  confidence  in  his  security  at 
Washington,  whatever  he  may  think  proper  to  do,  whether  with  or  with- 
out reason  I  cannot  say.  Each  commissioner  is  authorized  to  act  jointly 
or  separately  in  the  execution  of  the  commission.  Being  here  alone,  it  is 
necessary  that  that  power  should  be  explicitly  recognised  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  to  prevent  unpleasant  collisions  with  the  collector.  Inde- 
pendent of  my  duties  in  preparing  a  report,  I  have  received  answers  to 
interrogatories  handed  out  to  witnesses,  and  not  returned  prior  to  your 
leaving  this  city.  In  some  instances  also,  witnesses  who  had  heretofore 
testified  have  appeared  before  me,  and  enlarged  their  testimony  on  points, 
when  their  evidence  was  not  full  or  not  well  understood  at  the  time  they 
were  first  examined.  In  short,  a  great  deal  was  left  to  be  done  after  your 
departure,  to  complete  the  testimony,  and  comply  with  the  order  of  the 
board  for  bringing  up  the  record  and  completing  the  copies. 

I  wish  you  would  state  these  things  to  the  Secretary,  as  Mr.  Curtis  is 
very  uneasy  at  my  presence  here,  and  will  no  doubt,  as  usual,  make  many 
misrepresentations  to  the  Department,  and  through  Mr.  Webster  to  the 
President,  to  dissatisfy  them  with  my  remaining  to  complete  my  report. 

In  a  few  days  I  hope  to  follow  Mr.  Thruston,  and  relieve  myself  from 
this  most  unpleasant  commission. 

I  am,  respectfully,  your  friend  and  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  POINDEXTER. 


HOYT'S  CORRESPONDENCE  RELATIVE  TO  DE  CASSE,  MIEGE,  &  CO.,  AND 

LA  CHAISE  &  FOUCHE. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  12,  1838. 

Sir  :  From  the  investigation  taken  place  in  this  office,  I  have  been  sat- 
isfied that  Messrs.  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  have  practised  such  frauds  upon 
the  revenue  as  that  it  becomes  my  duty  to  proceed  to  the  extremity  of  the 
law.    I  therefore  request  you  to  take  the  following  proceedings,  viz  : 

1.  To  cause  Mr.  La  Chaise  to  be  arrested  for  perjury,  in  making  false  en- 
tries, he  being  the  person  who  swore  to  them. 


302 


Doc.  No.  669. 


2.  In  order  to  recover  the  duties  upon  goods  which  they  have  caused  to 
be  entered  and  passed  as  free,  and  which  amount  to  about  §1,700,  I  desire 
'to  hold  on  to  what  goods  we  have  in  possession,  not  all  perhaps  liable  to 
seizure,  and  which  amount  to  about  48,000  francs ;  and  also  to  sue  in  the 
proper  action  to  recover  the  duties  due  to  the  United  States. 

3.  I  wish  suits  to  be  brought  on  the  following  penal  bonds  signed  by  the 
firm,  for  goods  in  the  following  vessels  : 

Ville  de  Lyons,  penalty         ...  -  -  §9,000 

Charlemagne,  penalty  -  14,000 

Rhone,  penalty  -  -  -  -  -  14,000 

and  all  dated  the  20th  April,  183S. 

4.  The  house,  but  which  partner  I  do  not  know,  gave  bribes  to  the  per- 
sons formerly  connected  with  this  office,  the  names  of  whom  you  already 
know.  Both  partners,  no  doubt, m  judgment  of  law,  are  parties  to  the  trans- 
action, and  are  equally  culpable. 

Mr,  La  Chaise  signs  his  name  A.  La  Chaise  in  all  cases ;  and  I  enclose  you 
a  power  of  attorney  which  will  instruct  you  how  his  name  should  be  used 
in  the  proceedings  I  request  you  to  institute,  which  please  to  preserve  care- 
fully, and  return  to  this  office.  The  names  are  Jacques  Arrnand  La  Chaise 
and  Victor  Fouche. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  18,  1838. 

Sir:  I  herewith  hand  you  an  invoice  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  with 
the  entry  of  that  house,  and  also  a  permit  for  certain  goods  imported  by 
them  in  the  ship  Charlemagne. 

It  is  very  apparent  that  the  invoice  and  permit  have  been  altered  in  a 
manner  that  amounts  to  forgery  at  common  law,  and  punishable  under 
the  act  of  Congress. 

It  is  supposed  that  Mr.  De  Casse  is  the  individual  who  has  perpetrated 
the  crime. 

I  wish  you  to  take  all  legal  measures  to  bring  him  to  justice. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  18,  1838. 
Sir  :  You  are  authorized  to  suspend  the  criminal  proceedings  against 
De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  until  9  o'clock  to-morrow  morning. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


Hep.  No.  669. 


303 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  26,  1838. 
Sir  :  In  obedience  to  the  requirements  of  the  4th  section  of  the  act  enti- 
tled "An  act  to  provide  for  the  appointment  of  a  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury," 
I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  the  following  seizures  have  been  made  at 
this  port,  under  my  direction,  viz  : 


8  cases  woollens  of  C.  W.  Dayton,  valued  by  him,  26th  May, 

at  £2,065  105.  sterling. 
7  cases  containing  51  pieces,  of  C.W.Dayton,  valued  by  him 

on  26th  of  May,  at  £1,930  Ss. 
259  pieces  of  woollens,  from  James  Bottomly,  jr.'s  store,  not  yet 

appraised. 

15  cases  woollens,  in  public  store,  belonging  to  same,  ap- 
praised at  £1,403  1 4s.  §\d. 

2  cases  pistols  and  one  case  guns,  ol  L.  Strasser,  invoiced  at 
6,1 9 3T4^g- francs,  appraised  at  10,185-jy^  francs. 

4  cases  hardware  ;  Edward  Leon  &  Co.;  entered  at  £127  13s. 
9d.  sterling. 

I  took  from  the  store  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  26  packages  of 
goods ;  and  I  retained  5  cases,  sent  to  public  store,  for 
appraisement;  making,  together,  31  packages  of  French 
goods. 

We  took  24  cases  of  French  goods  from  store  of  La  Chaise  & 
Fouche.  We  retained  5  packages  sent  to  appraiser's  office, 
and  1  package  in  addition,  making  30  packages. 

We  took  from  the  store  of  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  61  packages 
of  goods — part  of  packages  not  full. 

From  same,  35  packages — part  not  full. 


Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solid  lor  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York.  May  30,  1838. 
Sir:  I  send  to  you  the  following  list  of  seizures,  which  I  wish  acted 
upon  with  as  little  delay  as  practicable. 

No  1.  A  memorandum  of  32  cases  of  goods  taken  from  the  store  of  La 
Chaise  &  Fouche,  No.  39  Beaver  street,  found  in  the  cellar  and 
first  floor,  on  the  15th  May,  under  circumstances  partially  staled 
at  the  foot  of  the  memorandum. 

No.  2.  A  like  memorandum  of  58  cases,  taken  from  the  upper  lofts  of  the 
same  store  on  the  14th  of  May  last. 

No.  3.  I  send  the  following  papers  in  the  case  of  L.  Strasser,  on  the  entry 
of  3  cases  pistols,  marked  L.  S.,  which  I  have  also  seized. 

1.  The  sworn  entry  for  pistols. 

2.  The  invoice  for  6,1 93T4^  francs. 


304 


Eep.  No.  669. 


3.  The  appraisement,  showing  2  cases  of  pistols  and  1  of  guns 
to  the  value  of  10,1S5tJo  francs. 
No.  4.  The  following  pfepers  in  case  of  an  invoice  of  hardware,  also  seized, 
viz  : 

1.  The  sworn  entry  of  P.  A.  Meyer,  showing  the  entry  of 
£127  13s.  9d. 

2.  The  invoice  for  same  amount. 

3.  The  appraisement  for  £191  lis.  Id. 

4.  The  papers  attached  to  the  appraisement. 

No.  5.  The  following  papers  in  case  of  a  case  of  watches,  entered  Sands, 
Turner,  Fox,  &  Co.,  the  10th  May  inst. 

1.  The  invoice,  £374  lis.  6d. 

2.  The  appraisement  of  United  States  appraisers,  showing 
value,  £546  4s.  6d. 

3  The  appraisement  of  Mr.  Tobias,  £555  Is. 

Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  July  26,  1838. 

Sir  :  In  the  cases  of  La  Chaise  &  Fouche,  I  send  you  the  following  pa- 
pers : 

1.  A  penal  bond  for  $9,000,  for  the  importation  by  the  Ville  de  Lyons. 

2.  A  like  bond  for  $1 4,000,  by  the  Charlemagne. 

3.  A  like  bond  for  $  14,000,  by  the  Rhine. 

4.  An  entry  by  the  Charlemagne,  and  invoice,  together  with  sample  of 
the  goods,  by  which  you  will  see  the  goods  do  not  correspond  with  the 
entry  or  invoice.  . 

5.  The  like  papers  by  the  Rhine,  and  the  same  results. 

6.  The  like  by  Burgundy,  except  invoice,  of  which  we  could  never  get 
possession. 

Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  October  10,  1838. 
Sir:  Will  you  furnish  me  with  a  particular  description  of  the  goods 
now  under  seizure,  for  a  violation  of  the  revenue  laws  imported  by  De 
Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.  and  La  Chaise  &  Fouche,  respectively,  together  with 
causes  of  forfeiture,  and  such  other  information  as  may  conduce  to  their 
confiscation. 

The  description  of  goods  and  causes  of  forfeiture  are  now  sought,  that  I 
may  proceed  to  file  informations,  the  difficulty  which  has  hitherto  been 


% 

•  Kep.  No.  669.  305 

depending  before  the  court,  in  the  case  of  James  Bottomly  jr.'s,  goods, 
having  at  length  been  removed. 

I  am,  &c. 

WM.  M.  PRICE, 
United  States  Attorney. 

J.  Hoyt,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  11, 1S38. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  favor  of  this  day,  asking  for  the  description  of  the 
goods  of  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  and  La  Chaise  &  Fouche,  under 
seizure,  and  also  the  cause  of  seizure.  In  relation  to  the  matter,  I  send  a 
.statement  similar  to  that  sent  you  last  May,  of  the  kind  of  goods  seized  ; 
and  they  are  marked. 

No.  1.  32  cases  taken  from  the  store  39  Beaver  street,  on  the  14th  May, 
on  the  first  floor  and  cellar,  and  appraised  at  94,887.03  francs, or  $16,779.87. 

No.  2.  Taken  from  same  place,  on  15th  May,  and  comprising  58  cases 
appraised  at  61,921.6S  francs,  or  $9,601  65  ;  the  latter  was  taken  from  the 
upper  stories.  You  will  observe  that  on  some  of  the  cases  the  marks  were 
taken  oft,  and  therefore  cannot  be  identified  by  original  marks.  The  con- 
tents of  the  packages  are  all  dutiable,  and  we  believe,  and  have  no  doubt 
of  the  fact,  were  all  smuggled  through  the  custom-house,  by  means  of 
which  you  have  already  been  acquainted. 

It  is  believed  they  were  all  entered  under  a  false  name.  Goods  entered 
as  silk  velvet  and  ribbons  turned  out  to  be  cotton  goods,  or  dutiable  articles. 
As  to  the  goods  taken  from  the  first  floor  and  cellar,  they  denied  ail  know- 
ledge of  or  oVnership  in  them  when  they  were  taken. 

I  will  address  you  at  another  time  in  relation  to  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney.- 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  20,  1838. 

Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  October  19,  in  relation  to  the  statement  of 
Mr.  Cutting,  concerning  an  agreement  with  me,  touching  the  case  of  De 
Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  and  La  Chaise  &  Fouche.  Upon  its  receipt,  I  addressed 
a  note  to  Mr.  Cutting,  requesting  him  to  call  and  see  me,  and  he  did  so  ; 
and  although  Mr.  Cutting  was  under  the  impression,  from  a  conversation 
he  had  with  me,  that  an  arrangement  referred  to  did  exist,  yet  I  satisfied 
him  that  he  was  under  an  erroneous  impression,  and  we  parted  with  the 
understanding  that  no  such  agreement  existed. 

Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  22,  183S. 
Sir  :  I  had  a  conversation  with  Mr.  Hamilton,  your  assistant,  to-day,  on 
the  subject  of  the  seizure  in  the  case  of  La  Chaise  &  Fouche. 


i 

306 


Rep.  No.  669.  . 


The  seizures  alluded  to  were  made  on  the  14th  and  15th  of  May  last 
The  one  on  the  14th  was  of  5S  cases  at  the  store  No.  39  Beaver  street,  in- 
the  upper  lofts,  and  that  on  the  15th  May  was  of  32  cases  in  the  cellar 
and  on  the  first  floor. 

He  stated  that  he  had  received  instructions  from  you  to  file  separate  in- 
formations for  each  importation,  or,  in  other  words,  that  you  could  not 
include  in  one  information  importations  by  different  and  distinct  vessels. 
We  also  had  some  conversation  in  relation  to  the  form  of  the  information, 
as  applicable  to  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 

I  now  beg  leave  to  state  my  views  in  relation  to  this  matter. 

1.  The  seizure  in  this  case  was  one  made  upon  land,  and  the  prosecution 
takes  place  on  the  exchequer  side  of  the  court,  and  the  form  of  the  infor- 
mation does  not  require  that  you  set  forth  the  vessel  in  which  the  goods 
were  imported ;  and,  consequently,  you  may  include  in  one  information 
goods  imported  in  one  hundred  different  vessels.  The  "gist  of  the  proceed- 
ings is  a  fraud  in  getting  possession  of  the  goods,  either  by  a  false  entry  or 
without  permit  from  the  collector.  "  The  ship  or  vessel  is  as  yet  unknown 
to  the  said  attorney,"  is  the  form. 

2.  The  goods  seized  are  to  be  so  described  as  to  give  reasonable  notice 
to  the  world  of  the  proceedings,  to  the  end  that  the  rightful  owner  may 
come  in  and  claim  property,  and  have  the  right  of  defence  secured  to  him; 
and  for  this  purpose  the  best  description  in  the  power  of  the  prosecution 
is  to  be  set  forth,  but  the  marks  and  numbers  of  packages  need  not  be 
given,  especially  in  a  case  like  the  present,  where  the  marks  and  numbers 
were  erased  by  the  importers,  as  a  better  means  of  escaping  detection.  I 
find  this  form  of  the  libel  in  Dunlap's  Admiralty  Practice,  page  379 ;  see, 
also,  the  Merino,  9  Wheaton,  391,  401. 

As  to  the  form  of  the  information,  I  would  have  one  as  in  the  precedent 
I  refer  to,  that  the  goods  were  landed  without  permit.    Such  is  the  fact. 

1.  Because  no  permit  was  given  for  the  goods  in  question.  The  permit 
was  given  for  free  goods. 

2.  Upon  this  allegation  we  make  a  prima  facie  case,  and  throw  the 
onus  upon  the  claimants.    (See  "  Proof,"  Dunlap,  277,  278.) 

3.  I  would  have  another  count  upon  the  67th  section  of  the  act  of  1799. 
The  goods  have  been  examined  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  that 
section.    (See  6  Wheaton,  1S7.) 

(3.)  For  greater  precaution,  a  count  could  be  added  under  the  14th. 
section  of  the  act  of  July  14,  1832. 

The  evidence  of  fraud  upon  the  general  question  is  : 

1.  Testimony  of  Campbell  and  Davis. 

2.  Mr.  Wetmore,  the  storekeeper,  saw  the  clerk  of  La  Chaise  and  Fouche 
in  the  act  of  erasing  the  marks  and  numbers  from  the  packages  in  the 
store. 

3.  The  goods  taken  from  the  cellar  and  first  door  were  under  the  follow- 
ing circumstances  : 

1.  They  denied  all  knowledge  of  or  ownemship  in  the  goods,  and  that 
Brown  &  Hone  had  the  key  of  the  apartment. 

2.  After  this  declaration,  they  took  the  key  and  gave  it  to  Mr.  Brown, 
from  whom  we  procured  it  the  next  morning. 

If,  under  these  circumstances,  they  put  in  a  claim  for  the  goods,  they 
must  swear  to  the  ownership  ;  in  answer  to  which,  we  can  show  by  Mr. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


307 


Wetmore  that  Mr.  La  Chaise  said  he  had  no  interest  in  the  goods — he  acted 
as  agent. 

If  the  claim  is  put  in  by  any  other  person,  then  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  are 
competent  witnesses  to  prove  the  fraud,  and  they  would  not  perjure  them- 
selves in  open  in  court,  and  in  the  face  of  the  whole  community. 

But  all  the  entries  show  they  took  the  owner's  oath,  as  to  all  goods 
entered  by  them. 

Again  :  we  have  the  power  of  attorney,  showing  they  acted  as  the 
agents  of  Billiet  Landers  &  Fils,  of  Lyons  ;  which  I  now  send  you — one  a 
copy,  the  original  recorded,  and  the  other  is  the  original. 

As  to  the  goods  taken  on  the  14th  May,  from  the  upper  lofts  of  the 
store,  we  can  show : 

1.  That  many  of  the  goods  were  concealed  in  the  garret  of  the  building 
under  filthy  rubbish. 

2.  As  to  all  the  goods,  they  had  not  entered  any  of  the  description  in 
question,  which  throws  the  proof  upon  them,  to  account  for  the  possession 
of  them,  and  of  whom  they  procured  them. 

3.  I  have  no  doubt  we  can  show,  by  various  merchants,  that  they  had 
bought  dutiable  goods  of  them,  and  indeed  we  know  we  can  show  by 
Townsend  &  Brothers  that  they  purchased  goods  of  them  of  the  same 
marks  and  numbers,  which  they  entered  as  free. 

Under  such  an  accumulation  of  circumstances,  I  think  the  language  of 
Mr.  Justice  Livingston,  in  the  case  of  Robert  Edwards,  (6  Wheaton,  190,) 
is  appropriate  :  "Although  such  proof  may  generally  be  desirable,  we  are 
not  to  shut  our  eyes  on  circumstances,  which  sometimes  carry  with  them 
a  conviction,  which  the  most  positive  testimony  will  sometimes  fail  la 
produce." 

We  took  a  case  of  papers  from  the  store,  which  was  sealed  up,  and  is 
now  in  our  vault,  and  has  not  been  opened.  Mr.  Hamilton  thinks  we 
have  a  right  to  open  them.    I  wish  you  to  consider  that  question. 

In  addition  to  the  circumstances  already  detailed,  I  will  state  that 
Campbell  spent  two  hours  at  the  counting-room  of  La  Chaise  &  Fouche, 
the  Saturday  before  he  left  the  custom-house.  I  will  also  refer  to  the 
correspondence  with  them,  or  rather  the  letters  I  wrote  them,  which  they 
never  answered,  but  which  I  now  send  you,  and  which  may  be  necessary 
to  use  on  the  trial  of  the  causes  on  the  penal  bonds. 

1.  A  letter  to  them  under  date  of  April  26,  183S,  marked  No.  h 

2.  A  notice  from  the  appraisers,  under  the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  July 
.14,  1832,  of  which  they  took  no  notice,  marked  No.  2. 

3.  A  letter  to  them  under  date  of  May  21,  1838,  marked  No.  3. 

4.  A  letter  under  same  date  as  last,  marked  No.  4. 

5.  A  certificate  from  Mr.  Ogden,  invoice  clerk,  as  to  demand  of  invoice, 
marked  No.  5. 

To  none  of  which  was  any  answer  made ;  and  the  inference  is  most 
certainly  unfavorable  to  the  fairness  of  the  transactions  of  the  house  in< 
question. 

As  it  regards  the  penal  bond  suits,  if  you  will  inform  me  whether  you 
have  the  invoices  or  not  on  which  the  bonds  are  predicated,  I  will  endeavor 
to  supply  them  if  you  have  not  got  them,  or  I  will  refer  to  the  appraisers' 
book,  and  see  what  memorandum  I  can  find  on  the  subject. 

I  differ  with  Mr.  Hamilton  in  relation  to  the  form  of  the  information  in 
a  respect  not  before  alluded  to. 


308  Rep.  No.  669. 

He  left  with  me  yesterday  papers  marked  Nos.  1  and  2,  which  I  now 
return  to  you,  for  the  purpose  of  having  a  designation  put  thereon,  (which 
he  will  explain  to  you,)  as  to  the  materials  of  which  "  barage  and  velvet" 
are  composed — he  being  of  opinion  that  we  must  set  forth  in  the  informa- 
tion that  it  is  silk  or  worsted,  or  some  other  material  which  is  free  ;  and  I 
am  of  opinion  that  if  it  sets  forth  that  the  article  is  free,  it  is  quite  sufficient. 

We  could  do  as  Mr.  Hamilton  wishes  but  for  the  sickness  of  Mr.  Bleecker, 
who  is  not  able  to  talk  upon  the  matter;  and  he  is  the  only  one  that 
could  answer  the  question. 

If  I  am  right,  of  w  hich  I  have  no  doubt,  then  Mr.. Bleecker  need  not  be 
troubled  with  it. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  23,  1S3S. 
Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  correspondence  I  have  had  with  Messrs.  De  Casse, 
Miege,  &  Co.,  which  will  enable  you  to  understand,  to  some  extent,  the 
points  in  controversy  between  them  and  the  United  States,  growing  out  of 
their  transactions  at  the  custom-house  ;  and  it  relates  as  well  to  the  suits  you 
have  commenced  on  their  penal  bonds,  and  the  suits  to  recover  the  amount 
of  duties  claimed  from  them,  as  the  informations  I  now  propose  to  request 
you  to  file  for  goods  seized  by  me,  purporting  to  have  been  imported  by 
them. 

I  shall  refer,  in  the  narration  I  give,  to  the  correspondence,  which,  in  my 
judgment,  may  bear  upon  the  several  points  raised  by  me  in  support  of  the 
views  I  take.  It  is  attached,  and  marked  No.  1  on  outside,  and  the  letter 
and  papers  are  marked  inside  from  1  to  13.  The  narration  is  substantially 
thus : 

About  the  24th  April,  183S,  / suspected  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 
of  doing  an  unfair  business  at  the  custom-house.  I  asked  for  the  invoice 
by  the  Charlemagne, and  it  was  not  produced;  and  after  sending  for  it  several 
times,  and  receiving  prevaricating  answers,  (see  my  letter  of  May  4,  mark- 
ed 5|2,)  I  directed  Mr.  G.  A.  Wasson,  an  inspector  and  storekeeper,  to  go 
to  their  store  and  bring  all  the  goods  he  could  find  of  a  particular  mark  to 
the  public  store  ;  and  he  accordingly  went  and  brought  the  folio wing-de- 

scribed  packages,  viz  :    c     569,  570,  597,  569,569,  571,571,  571,570, 

570,  458,  553,  169,  572,  572,  572— in  all  16  cases  :  that  is,  3  No.  569,  3  No. 
570,  3  No.  571,  3  No.  572,  1  No.  597,  1  No.  45S,  1  No.  553,  1  No.  169.  I 
then  addressed  them  a  letter,  under  date  of  April  26,  marked  in  the  corres- 
pondence No.  1. 

I  should  here  remark,  that  all  the  packages  imported  by  them  were  mark- 
ed on  the  outside  wrapper,  and  by  that  mark  they  were  entered  at 

the  custom-house,  and  sometimes  the  mark  on  the  cases  under  the  wrap- 
per would  correspond  with  the  mark  on  the  wrapper,  but  in  most  instances 
it  would  not ;  and  therefore  it  was  difficult  to  trace  their  goods,  for  as  soon 


Kep.  No.  669. 


309 


as  they  were  entered  at  the  custom-house,  and  permitted,  they  were  taken 
to  their  store  and  the  outside  wrapper  taken  off  and  destroyed. 

To  my  letter  of  26th  April,  they  answered,  under  date  of  26th,  27th.,  and 
30th  April,  all  received  by  me  on  the  3d  May,  and  are.  numbered  in  the 
correspondence  3,  4,  and  5. 

I  remark  here,  that  the  letter  of  the  27th  April  (No.  3)  admits  of  the 
opening  of  the  packages  not  sent  to  public  store,  and  also  that  some  of 
them  were  sold.  This,  then,  amounts  to  a  forfeiture  of  the  penal  bond 
under  the  second  count  in  your  declaration. 

The  goods  sent  to  the  public  store,  imported  in  the  Charlemagne,  were — 

B  D 

Wrapper  mark  679,  mark  on  cases  under  wrapper   q  4S5 

Do.        6S9,  do.  do.  599 

Do.        67S,  do.  do.  154 

Do.         690,  do.  do.  600 

Do.        665,  no  mark  on  case.- 
The  invoice  and  permit,  as  to  the  last  case,  were  altered  from  666  to  665, 
as  you  have  already  been  informed,  and  for  which  a  presentment  was  ten- 
dered to  the  grand  jury.    The  facts  are  thus :  cases  678,  689,  and 

690,  were  entered  as  dutiable  ;  cases  679  and  666  were  on  free  entry,  and 
the  whole  five  ordered  to  public  store,  and  the  number  666  was  altered  on 
, invoice  and  permit  to  665  by  De  Casse,  as  we  allege. 
By  reason  of  these  transactions,  I  contend — 

1.  That  the  penal  bond,  by  Charlemagne,  is  forfeited  beyond  doubt ;  but, 
moreover,  after  the  return  was  made  on  the  invoice,  and  before  the  expi- 
ration of  the  10  days,  and  on  the  19th  May,  I  required  them,  in  writing, 
to  produce  the  remainder  of  the  goods  in  the  invoice.  (See  letter  of  that 
date,  in  correspondence  No.  13,  the  last  document  in  paper  No.  1.)  But 
see  their  letter  of  May  5,  (marked  No.  6,)  in  which  they  enclose  invoice 
by  Charlemagne  and  Utica,  and  admit  sales  of  the  goods  ;  but  the  goods  by 
Charlemagne  had  not  then  regularly  passed  the  custom-house,  as  I  state  in 
my  letter  of  May  9,  (marked  No.  7,)  and  in  which  I  gave  them  notice  in 
substance  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  bond. 

2.  That  we  can  condemn  the  case  666,  though  we  never  had  possession 
of  it,  by  reason  of  the  alteration;  but  the  case  665,  which  was  substituted 
by  fraud,  we  can  condemn,  though  it  be  in  fact  free  goods. 

3.  That  case  689  was  entered  by  wrong  description,  see  their  letter,  and 
the  remarks  hereafter.  I  repeat,  the  5  cases  sent  to  public  store  from  the 
Charlemagne  were — 

Nos.  on  wrapper,  by  which  they  were  entered,  67S,  6S9,  and  690,  on 
dutiable  entry,  invoiced  at  66.44  francs;  679  and  666,  on  free  entry,  in- 
voiced at  4,732.75  francs. 

On  examination,  the  contents  of  cases  were  as  follows  : 

678,  cotton  hose. 

689,  colored  linen  and  cotton,  entered  as  galloons.  (See  letter.) 

690,  suspenders,  (gum  elastic  and  cotton,)  all  of  which  were  dutiable  at 
25  per  cent. 

The  two  cases  on  free  entry  turned  out  thus  : 

679,  bombazines,  a  free  article. 

666  was  abducted,  and  its  contents  we  know  not;  but  665,  its  fraud l- 
lent  substitute,  contained  20  pieces  satins. 


310 


Rep.  No.  669. 


The  letter  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  under  date  of  30th  April, 
(marked  No.  5,)  purports  to  give  an  account  of  the  16  cases  taken  from 
their  store. 

You  will  observe,  in  the  numbers  I  gave  you  in  the  early  part  of  this 
communication,  there  were  triplicates  of  the  numbers  569,  570,  571,  and 
572,  making,  of  course,  12  packages.    The  outside  wrappers  had  been  ta- 


and  571,  as  stated  in  the  letter,  and  by  these  numbers  they  were  entered  as 
free,  by  the  Burgundy,  on  29th  March,  1838.  On  examination,  it  turned 
out  that  these  4  or  12  cases  were  dutiable  goods,  at  the  rate  of  25  per  cent., 
being  India  rubber  covered  with  cotton. 

The  remaining  4  cases  of  the  16  were  169,  45S,  553,  597,  containing  as 
follows,  viz  : 

169,  20  pieces  lustrings; 

458,  50  dozen  silk  hose,  and  so  entered  ; 

553,  20  dozen  suspenders,  silk,  chief  value ; 

597,  silk  galloons. 

All  the  contents  of  these  4  cases  were  free  goods  at  the  time  they  were 
entered.  It  follows,  then,  that  we  could  forfeit,  of  the  goods  referred  to, 
under  the  several  duty  acts,  as  follows,  viz:  the  12  cases  India  rubber 


colored  linen  and  cotton,  entered  as  galloons. 

But  I  contend  we  can  forfeit  all,  under  the  proceedings  taken  by  the 
appraisers,  founded  on  the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  14th  July,  1S32,  which 
provides,  if  the  importer  or  agent  shall  perjure  himself  in  any  examination 
taken  by  virtue  of  that  section,  the  goods  shall  be  forfeited,  without  refer- 
ence to  the  question  of  free  or  dutiable  goods. 

In  the  correspondence  I  send  you  will  find  a  copy  of  the  notice  from  the 
appraisers  under  the  act,  and  also  copy  of  the  examination  of  Mr.  De  Casse, 
(marked  12.)  That  he  perjured  himself  in  that  examination  I  have  no  doubt, 
and  no  one  can  doubt  from  the  answer  he  made;  and  if  this  be  so,  I  think 
all  the  goods  are  forfeited. 

I  desire,  then,  that  you  file  an  information,  with  averments  suited  to  the 
case,  under  all  the  circumstances  detailed. 

Another  question  there  is,  whether  you  will  again  lay  the  case  before 
the  grand  jury,  for  the  forgery  and  bribery ;  and,  also,  a  further  complaint 
for  perjury,  in  the  following  cases  : 

1.  The  case  of  package  666. 

2.  The  case  under  the  8th  section  of  the  act  of  1S32. 

In  the  latter  case,  the  right  to  call  before  the  grand  jury  the  clerks  of  the 
house,  and  also  Mr.  Miege,  to  show  the  perjury  in  the  matter  of  the  keeping 
the  books  and  the  accounts.  I  recommend  this  course,  for  reasons  which 
I  will  communicate  to  you  verbally.  It  is  now  a  long  time  since  this  affair 
has  been  in  the  condition  it  now  is,  and  I  am  anxious  to  get  it  disposed  of, 
and  therefore  I  am  thus  particular  in  its  details. 

I  send,  herewith,  a  schedule  of  the  goods  (the  21  packages)  as  they  turn- 
ed out  to  be  on  examination,  (marked  A;)  and  also  Mr.  Wasson's  return 
to  me,  when  he  seized  the  16  packages,  (marked  B.)  The  paper  marked 
A  is  a  description  of  the  5  packages  sent  to  public  store  from  the  Charle- 
magne, as  well  as  the  16  packages  seized  by  Mr.  Wasson. 


ken  off,  and  the  12  cases  corresponded  with  the  marks 


balls,  numbered  in  entry  569, 570, 571,  572,  case  666  or  665,  case 


Rep.  No.  669.  311 

As  to  the  suits  upon  the  penal  bonds,  other  than  by  the  Charlemagne,  I 
will  advise  further,  if  you  shall  require  me  to  do  so ;  and  I  will  now  only 
remark,  that  I  have  no  doubt  it  is  perfectly  susceptible  of  proof  that  the 
packages  were  sold  or  opened  before  the  expiration  of  the  10  days  after  the 
goods  had  passed  the  custom-house. 

In  relation  to  the  suits  for  the  recovery  of  the  duties  unpaid  and  unse- 
cured, you  have  already  the  statements  of  the  supposed  amounts,  and  I 
wish  timely  notice  of  the  trial  of  the  causes,  when  I  will  endeavor  to  fur- 
nish proof. 

Respectful!}', 

I.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  21,  1S3S. 

Sir  :  On  the  14th  May  last,  the  inspectors  whom  I  sent  to  seize  the  goods 
in  the  store  of  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  found  a  case  of  papers,  from  which  they 
took  an  invoice  that  explained,  in  some  degree,  the  roguery  of  the  arlair. 

They  accordingly  seized  the  box  of  papers,  and  sealed  it  up,  and  it  is  now 
in  our  vault  unopened. 

The  question  I  wish  you  to  consider  is,  whether  we  have  the  right  to 
open  the  box  and  use  the  papers,  as  the  case  may  require.  They  are  a 
part  of  the  papers  which  belong  to  the  goods,  and  the  oaths  which  were 
taken  when  the  goods  were  opened. 

Yours, 

J.  HOYT. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  V.  S.  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  10,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  favor  of  the  9th  instant.    It  is  amusing  to  suppose 
there  is  an  informer  in  Philadelphia,  in  relation  to  the  three  packages  of 
goods  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co. 

I  wrote  you  tn  the  27th  of  April,  1838,  the  day  after  the  goods  were 
discharged  from  the  ship  here,  and  the  day  after  they  were  shipped  to  your 
city,  to  have  them  seized.  On  the  28th  April,  I  despatched  Mr.  Wasson, 
a  special  deputy,  to  look  after  the  matter  ;  soon  after  I  wrote  you  and  the 
marshal  on  the  same  subject,  and  also  despatched  Mr.  Thomas,  one  of  our 
assistant  appraisers,  to  examine  the  goods. 

I  would  be  glad  to  know  the  name  of  the  informer. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  7,  1839. 
Sir:  I  noticed  some  few  days  ago  an  advertisement  in  the  Philadelphia 
newspapers,  signed  by  the  marshal,  of  a  sale  of  three  packages  of  goods, 


312 


Rep.  No.  669. 


seized  by  my  direction,  in  Philadelphia,  in  May,  1838,  imported  into  this 
district  by  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.;  which  sale  was  to  take  place  on  the 
29th  of  August  last. 

By  the  90th  section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  you  are  to  receive  the 
proceeds  of  said  sale,  and  pay  the  same  over  to  the  collector  of  the  district 
in  which  such  seizure  or  forfeiture  has  taken  place.  You  then  have  the 
option  to  pay  it  over  to  the  collector  of  Philadelphia,  where  the  seizure  was 
made,  or  to  the  collector  of  New  York,  where  the  forfeiture  took  place. 
The  71st  section  of  the  same  act  directs  the  collector  receiving  the  forfeit- 
ure from  you,  as  the  clerk,  to  pay  it  to  the  collector  of  the  district  where 
the  same  forfeiture  shall  have  been  incurred.  I  take  the  occasion  to  ap- 
prize you  that  I  claim  that  the  proceeds  of  the  forfeiture  be  paid  to  me,  as 
collector  of  the  district  where  the  said  forfeiture  occurred. 

I  apprize  you,  the  collector,  and  district  attorney  of  Philadelphia,  of  the 
claim,  to  the  end  that  you  will  take  notice  of  my  rights  in  the  premises. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

To  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  of  the 

Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 


Custom-House,  New  York, 
Collector's  Office,  May  25,  1839. 
Gentlemen:  Referring  to  a  conversation  I  had  with  you  this  morning, 
in  relation  to  the  affairs  of  Messrs.  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  with  this  office,  the 
naval  officer  observed  that  he  had  seen  Mr.  Davis,  the  former  clerk  in  the 
appraisers'  office,  and  from  whom  we  expected  important  testimony,  and 
that  he  would  decline  testifying  to  any  thing  that  would  implicate  himself ; 
and  as  the  transactions  complained  of,  as  they  relate  to  La  Chaise  &  Fouche, 
would  directly  implicate  Mr.  Davis,  we  should  therefore  be  deprived  of 
his  testimony. 

The  same  result  would  follow  our  expectations  from  the  testimony  of 
Mr.  Campbell,  the  former  deputy,  if  we  are  to  judge  from  the  course  he 
took  on  the  trial  of  Bottomly's  goods;  and  that  would,  of  course,  leave  the 
United  States  without  such  testimony  as  would  be  necessary  to  have  to 
ensure  a  condemnation  of  the  goods  or  a  recovery  on  the  penal  bonds. 

An  overture  is  made,  on  the  part  of  the  house  in  question,  to  compro- 
mise the  claim  by  paying  the  costs,  and  something  over  $45,000 — say 
$45,500 ;  and,  under  the  advice  of  the  district  attorney,  upon  the  difficul- 
ties of  the  case,  I  am  in  favor  of  accepting  the  proposition  ;  and  if  it  meets 
your  approbation,  I  will  take  the  responsibility  of  closing  the  matter.  I 
would  thank  you  for  an  early  reply. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

To  William  S.  Coe,  Naval  Officer,  and 

Hector  Craig,  Surveyor  of  the  port  of  New  York. 

We  agree  to  the  proposition  above  stated,  and  recommend  its  adoption.. 

WILLIAM  S.  COE,  Naval  Officer. 
HECTOR  CRAIG,  Surveyor. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


313 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  30,  1839. 

Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  in  answer  to  mine  of  the  16th, 
in  relation  to  the  proceeds  of  the  forfeiture  in  the  case  of  De  Casse,Miege, 
&  Co.,  in  which  you  refer  "to  other  parties  who  claim  distributive  shares" 
in  that  forfeiture.  I  am  in  this  res'pect  situated  as  you  are,  and  "  other 
parties5'  look  to  me  for  the  vindication  and  protection  of  their  rights,  to  the 
same  extent,  that  you  are  looked  to ;  and,  by  God's  grace,  their  rights  shall 
not  surfer  by  any  neglect  of  mine. 

In  any  difference  of  opinion  that  may  exist  between  co-ordinate  orflcers 
of  the  Government,  there  can  surely  be  an  appropriate  mode  of  adjusting 
it,  without  an  open  legal  warfare  ;  and,  in  behalf  of  those  whom  I  represent, 
I  propose  to  submit  the  question,  amicably,  to  the  decision  of  the  respective 
district  attorneys  of  your  district  and  mine,  together  with  the  Solicitor  of 
the  Treasury,  whose  decision  I  will  stipulate  shall  be  final  and  conclusive. 

Mr.  Gilpin,  having  for  many  years  been  district  attorney,  is  more  famil- 
iar, probably,  with  the  revenue  laws  than  most  lawyers  and  judges,  and 
for  that  reason  I  name  him  ;  and  if  one  of  large  and  enlightened  views 
could  be  influenced  by  any  considerations  qjher  than  those  of  truth  and  jus- 
tice, the  bias  of  his  mind  would  naturally  lean  in  favor  of  the  officers  of  the 
district  with  whom  he  had  been  associated;  and  1  think,  therefore,  you  can- 
not take  exceptions  to  the  persons  whose  judgments  I  am  content  to 
abide  by. 

You  state  that  "  the  persons  who  feel  themselves  interested  in  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  goods  forfeited  believe  your  distribution  to  be  so  novel  and  so 
unprecedented,  that  they  cannot  (unimportant  as  the  sum  in  controversy 
may  be  in  amount)  consent  to  yield  to  the  collector  of  New  York  the  right 
to  distribute  the  proceeds  of  forfeitures  which  accrue  in  the  port  of  Phila- 
delphia, and  which  right,  they  believe,  resides  in  the  collector  of  Philadel- 
phia alone." 

I  have  no  answer  to  make  to  your  remarks  upon  the  novel  and  unpre- 
cedented character  of  my  claim,  for  these  remarks  neither  make  nor  unsettle 
the  law  under  which  that  claim  is  put  forward.  But  I  beg  leave  to  dis- 
claim, on  behalf  of  myself  and  those  whom  I  represent,  any  and  all  idea 
for  the  claim  of  or  the  proceeds  of  forfeitures  which  accrue  in  the  port  of 
Philadelphia. 

Whatever  the  law  awards  to  the  capable  and  efficient  officers  of  that 
port,  I  will  in  no  manner  interfere  with,  no  sooner  than  I  will  permit  them 
to  interfere  with  what  the  law  awards  to  the  officers  of  the  port  of  New 
York.  The  rights  and  obligations  of  the  officers  of  both  ports  the  law  de- 
fines ;  and,  upon  diligent  search,  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  provision 
of  law  applicable  to  the  facts  of  this  case,  which  describes  the  manner  and 
mode  of  distributing  the  proceeds  of  "fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures,"  ex- 
cept the  91st  section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  which  declares  that  they 
are  to  be  distributed  to  the  officers  (named)  in  the  district  "  where  the 
same  shall  have  been  incurred,"  and  not,  as  you  seem  to  suppose,  where 
they  "accrued."  There  may  be  no  difference  in  the  legal  signification  of 
the  words  "incurred"  and  "accrued,"  but  the  former  is  the  one  used, 
though  the  latter  is  applied  to  "  that  part  of  the  forfeiture  which  '  accrues' 
to  the  United  States,"  after  the  sale,  &c. 

I  have  not  searched  my  office  for  any  precedents,  but  I  beg  to  differ  with 
you  in  relation  to  the  policy  of  the  law,  as  I  understand  it  to  be;  but,  as  I 


314 


Rep.  No.  669. 


cannot  anticipate  that  any  benefits  would  result  from  a  discussion  of  that 
question,  I  shall  not  go  into  it ;  but  I  wish  particularly  to  note  the  following 
paragraph  in  your  letter  : 

"  Believing,  (you  say,)  that  every  principle  of  equity  and  justice  demand 
such  a  distribution,  and  that  Congress  never  contemplated  any  other,  es- 
pecially where,  as  in  this  case,  the  seizing  was  made  by  the  deputy  collector 
of  this  port,  on  the  information  of  a  citizen  of  Philadelphia  unconnected 
with  the  customs,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  directions  emanating  from  the 
collector  of  New  York,  or  any  one  acting  under  his  authority. " 

I  infer  from  this  that  you  consider  the  fact  of  some  importance,  by  whose 
direction,  suggestion,  or  intimation,  the  seizure  was  made.  I  will  not  at 
this  moment  assent  or  dissent  to  that  proposition,  because  the  facts  of  the 
case  do  not  require  that  I  should ;  but  it  is  quite  extraordinary  that  the  col- 
lector at  New  York  has  remained  in  error  in  relation  to  this  matter  so  long. 

He  has  always  supposed  that  the  very  day  after  the  goods  were  entered, 
and  before  they  reached  Philadelphia,  he  directed  the  district  attorney  to 
cause  them  to  be  seized.  A  long  correspondence  passed  between  that  col- 
lector and  the  marshal  of  your  district,  and  the  latter  sent  a  special  mes- 
senger, that  reached  me  in  the  night,  on  that  and  other  subjects,  and  by 
whom  I  sent  a  letter  to  the  marshal. 

That  collector  also  sent  an  assistant  appraiser  and  an  inspector  from  this 
port  to  Philadelphia  on  the  matter,  and  also  corresponded  with  the  district 
attorney,  from  the  time  of  the  seizure  to  the  condemnation  of  the  goods  ; 
and  yet,  that  none  of  these  transactions  came  to  your  knowledge  is  singu- 
lar. 

I  will  now  give  you  the  best  evidence  I  can*  of  the  reason  on  which  I 
founded  the  supposition  that  I  had  really  something  to  do  with  the  matter. 

On  the  26th  day  of  April,  1S38,  my  suspicions  of  the  integrity  of  the 
house  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  arose ;  on  the  same  day  they  had  sent,  di- 
rect from  the  ship  Charlemagne,  a  quantity  of  goods  to  Philadelphia.  On 
the  27th  of  that  month  I  wrote  a  letter  to  John  M.  Read,  Esq.,  district  at- 
torney, in  the  following  words  and  figures : 

"Custom-House,  New  York,  Jlpril  27,  1S38. 
"Sir  :  I  have  your  favor  of  yesterday.  I  understand  Messrs.  Stevens  & 
Co.,  or  some  other  auction  house  in  your  city,  sold  on  Tuesday  last  a  large 
amount  of  goods  of  Bottomly's.    If  so,  I  would  seize  the  goods,  if  the 
purchasers  have  not  in  fact  paid  for  «them.    French  goods  were  shipped 

yesterday  by  the  steamboat  Swan.    The  wrapper  is  marked  ^/^-  and 

the  inside  mark  is  B  ^    or         I  wish  all  these  with  either  of  these  marks 

seized  and  dealt  with  according  to  law.  The  French  goods  were  consign- 
ed to  Davies,  Stevenson,  &  Co.  If  Bottomly  is  in  your  city,  arrest  him  and 
hold  him  to  bail  for  $10,000.  I  will  send  you  an  affidavit  of  belief  that 
he  is  justly  indebted  to  the  United  States  in  that  sum/  if  your  practice  re- 
quires this  form. 

"  Respectfully, 

«  J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

"  John  M.  Read,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Attorney i  Philadelphia. 


Rep.  No.  069. 


315 


UN.  B.  If  the  wrapper  marked  is  taken  off,  you  must  be  careful  to 
preserve  it,  as  it  forms  a  part  of  the  proof.  J.  H." 

On  the  28th  of  April,  I  appointed  George  A.  Wasson  a  special  deputy  to 
proceed  to  Philadelphia,  in  reference  to  the  goods  in  question  as  well  as 
other  goods.    On  the  same  day,  I  wrote  to  the  marshal,  as  follows  : 

"  Custom-House,  New  York,  Jlpril  28,  1838. 
"Sir  :  Mr.  George  A.  Wasson,  a  special  deputy,  will  proceed  to  Philadel- 
phia, to  take  charge  of  the  matter  referred  to  in  your  letter  of  yesterday. 
He  is  acquainted  with  the  circumstances,  and  will  detail  them  all. 

"  Yours,  respectfully, 

«  J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

u  Samuel  D.  Patterson, 

U.  S\  Marsha/,  Philadelphia" 

I  wrote  a  similar  letter  to  Mr  Read,  the  district  attorney,  and  gave  the 
following  letter  of  instructions  to  Mr.  Wasson  : 

"Custom-House,  New  York,  April  28,  1838'. 

"Sir  :  I  herewith  hand  yon  a  commission  to  seize  in  my  name  the  wool- 
len goods  that  passed  through  this  custom-house  by  James  Bottomly,  jr., 
and  also  the  French  goods  passed  by  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  and 
La  Chaise  &  Fouche. 

"  I  refer  you  to  J.  M.  Read,  the  United  States  attorney,  and  Samuel  D. 
Patterson,  marshal,  Philadelphia,  for  any  aid  you  may  want.  The  goods 
are  supposed  to  be  in  the  possession  of  Davies,  Stevenson,  &  Co.,  or  P.  & 
J.  Ford,  or  S.  C.  &  J.  Ford. 

I  wish  you  to  remain  in  Philadelphia  till  the  mail  that  leaves  here  to- 
morrow reaches  there,  by  which  I  will  write  ;  and  it  may  be  necessary  for 
you  to  proceed  as  far  as  Baltimore  ;  and  if  you  should  learn  any  thing  in 
Philadelphia  that  induces  you  to  believe  it  is  fit  and  proper  for  you  to  pro- 
ceed to  Baltimore  without  further  instructions,  you  will  do  so,  and  call  on 
Nathaniel  Williams,  Esq.,  United  States  attorney  at  that  place,  for  any  aid 
you  may  require.  It  is  said  that  Mr.  Bottomly  has  a  large  amount  of  goods 
in  the  hands  of  Hoffman  &  Co.,  auctioneers. 

"  These  instructions  are  not  to  be  held  as  a  countermand  to  any  that 
may  have  been  given  to  the  United  States  attorney  at  either  place,  unless 
in  your  judgment  it  is  proper  to  do  so.   I  desire  this  letter  to  be  considered 
as  giving  you  full  power. 
t  "  Yours,  respectfully, 

"J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

"Mr.  George  A.  Wasson,  Neiu  York." 

On  the  7th  of  May  I  received  a  letter  from  the  marshal,  apprizing  me  of 
the  seizure,  in  the  following  words  : 

"  Marshal's  Office,  Philadelphia,  May  5,  1S38. 
"  Dear  Sir  :  I  hasten  to  inform  you  that  three  packages  ©f  French  goods? 
supposed  to  belong  to  those  referred  to  in  your  recent  letter,  were  this 
9* 


316 


Rep.  No.  669. 


morning  seized  at  the  auction  store  of  Messrs.  Meyers  &  Claghan,  43  Mar- 
ket street. 

"  The  cases  are  marked  as  follows  : 

q   '  and  the  numbers  are  126,  1146,  and  1175. 

«  Respectfully,  &c. 

"SAMUEL  I).  PATTERSON, 

Marshal  Eastern  District  Penn. 

"Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc." 

On  the  same  day  1  wrote  the  marshal  a  letter,  of  which  the  following  is 
a  copy  : 

"  Custom-House,  New  York,  May  7,  1S38. 
"  Sir  :  Your  favor  of  the  5th  instant,  informing  me  me  of  the  seizure  of 

4  packages  of  goods  marked        ,  and  numbered  126,  1146,  and  1175,  was 

received  this  day. 

"  I  have  an  examination  now  going  on,  that  will  enable  me  to  give  you 
further  instructions  in  the  matter. 

"  Yours,  &c. 

"J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

"  S.  D.  Patterson,  Esq., 

Marshal,  Philadelphia" 
On  the  15th  of  May,  I  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Read,  the  district  at- 
torney, in  the  words  following : 

"Philadelphia,  May  14,  1S38. 
"  Sir  :  In  order  for  further  proceedings  against  the  packages  seized  here 
under  your  directions,  it  will  be  necessary  to  furnish  me  with  the  name  of 
the  vessel  in  which  they  were  imported,  the  name  of  the  master,  and  the 
date  of  the  importation  ;  also,  in  what  manner  they  were  introduced,  and 
what  kind  of  goods,  with  the  names  of  the  importers  or  consignees,  and 
such  other  information  as  you  may  deem  material. 
"  Our  court  sits  next  Monday. 

"  1  am,  sir,  &c. 

"J.  M.  READ,  U.  S.  Attorney. 

"Jesse  Hoyt,  Collector" 

On  the  4th  of  June,  I  gave  Mr.  Read  particular  instructions,  which  it  is 
not  necessary  to  encumber  this  letter  with  a  copy  of. 

Under  the  state  of  things  developed  in  this  correspondence,  I  cannot  con- 
sent to  the  correctness  of  your  statement,  that  there  was  "absence  of  any 
directions  emanating  from  the  collector  of  New  York,  or  any  one  acting  by 
his  authority."  . 

That  a  citizen  of  Philadelphia  did  inform  your  deputy  in  what  particular 
store  the  goods  were,  I  admit ;  but  that  he  derived  the  information  from  my 
action  in  the  matter  is  quite  certain;  but  whether  he  got  it  from  the  orficer 
I  sent,  or  from  the  marshal  or  the  district  attorney,  or  the  officers,  I  know 
not,  nor  do  I  care;  for  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  he  should  stand  in  the 
attitude  of  an  informer,  and  take  all  the  benefits  thereby  that  the  law  al- 
lows him,  whether  he  be  connected  or  "unconnected  with  the  customs." 
Nor  do  I  mean  to  interfere  with,  or  in  any  manner  disturb,  any  practice 
that  may  have  hitherto  prevailed  in  your  district  with  reference  to  the  rights 


Rep.  No.  669. 


317 


growing  out  of  custom  with  any  prosecuting  officers  ;  nor  is  it  worth  while 
for  us  to  play  off  any  diplomacy  in  this  affair.  I  think  we  understand  each 
other,  though  neither  of  us  have  alluded  to  it  before  in  this  correspondence. 
The  question  in  this  case  is  the  law  ;  one  that  will  arise  in  the  recent 
seizure  in  your  city ;  and  I  am  quite  willing  to  meet  it  now  in  any  form 
that  you  may  suggest.  An  amicable  manner,  of  course,  would  be  prefer- 
red ;  but  it  has  to  be  met,  and  we  cannot  do  with  it  as  we  please,  because 
others  stand  behind  each  of  us,  whose  rights  are  to  be  respected ;  and  I  am 
not  aware  of  any  rightful  authority  that  belongs  to  us  to  disregard  their  in- 
terests. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

George  Wolf,  Esq.,  Collector.  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  30,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  2Sth  instant,  touching  a  discrepancy  be- 
tween the  reports  from  this  office  and  that  of  the  district  attorney,  concern- 
ing the  property  seized  in  the  store  of  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  in  May,  1S3S. 
That  discrepancy  arose  in  this  way  : 

The  goods  were  seized  on  the  14th  and  15th  of  May,  in  the  store,  and 
many  of  the  packages  were  broken  ones  ;  and,  when  they  were  appraised, 
they  corresponded  with  the  report  sent  to  the  district  attorney ;  but  I  did 
not  advert  to  the  difference  in  my  letter  of  the  31st  May. 

It  is  highly  creditable  to  the  diligence  of  your  office  that  these  things  are 
noticed,  and  that  an  explanation  is  required.  I  will  be  more  particular 
hereafter  in  making  my  reports.  I  hope  this  explanation  will  be  satisfactory. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Esq.,  Solicitor,  $c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  28,  1839. 

Sir  :  On  the  19th  of  May,  183S,  I  requested  your  predecessor  in  office  to 
commence  a  suit 'against  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  to  recover  duties 
unpaid  and  unsecured  on  goods  imported  by  them.  They  were,  arrested 
and  held  to  bail;  but  by  an  act  of  Congress  in  relation  to  imprisonment  for 
debt,  since  passed,  it  is  possible  that  bail  would  not  be  held  liable  in  case 
of  recovery,  if  the  principals  should  remove  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
court.    I  believe  no  step  has  been  taken  in  the  cause. 

In  the  case  of  Samuel  R.  Wood,  you  will  recollect  the  form  of  the  action,, 
as  commenced  by  your  predecessor.  Under  a  misapprehension  of  my  in- 
structions to  him,  great  difficulty  was  experienced  in  establishing  the 
amount  we  were  entitled  to  recover ;  and  other  difficulties  were  also  inter- 
posed, which  have  not  yet  been  removed.  I  suggest,  therefore,  under  this 
view  of  the  matter,  whether  it  would  not  be  well  to  discontinue  the  suit 
against  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  before  referred  to,  and  commence  another 
under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  for  the  forfeiture. 

The  advantages  in  this  proceeding  are  three-fold  : 

1st.  The  defendants  can  be  held  to  bail ;  and,  as  they  are  foreigners,  it 


318 


Rep-  No.  6G9. 


is  quite  probable  they  would  leave  this  country  to  avoid  the  payment  of  so- 
large  a  debt,  if  it  were  their  interest  to  do  so. 

2d.  The  facilities  for  recovery  I  consider  much  greater,  for  reasons  which 
have  frequently  been  a  matter  of  conversation  between  us. 

3d.  The  house  having  become  insolvent,  we  have  but  a  little  chance  of 
getting  any  thing  for  the  claim,  except  by  some  arrangement  in  the  nature 
of  a  compromise.  The  grand  jury  having  refused  to  find  bills  of  indict- 
ment against  them  for  the  frauds,  and  Congress  having  exempted  them 
from  imprisonment  for  debt,  as  they  suppose,  they  would  not  probably 
make  so  liberal  an  offer*  by  way  of  compromise,  as  they  would  do  if  they 
had  an  intimation  of  the  efficiency  of  the  66th  section,  in  the  form  of  a  legal 
proceeding  under  it. 

I  make  these  suggestions  for  your  serious  consideration. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  7,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  see,  by  the  enclosed  copy  of  a  bond,  that  the  declaration  in  the 
case  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  sets  it  out  correctly  ;  but  it  may  be  doubted 
whether  the  form  of  the  bond  is  right. 

It  was  drawn  by  James  Hamilton  and  Mr.  Ferguson,  the  former  district 
attorney  and  naval  officer.  It  occurs  to  me  there  may  be  a  difficulty  in  re- 
covering a  verdict. 

Would  it  not  be  best,  under  these  circumstances,  to  discontinue  the  suits 
on  the  bonds,  and  flee  to  the  protection  of  the  66th  section. 

Will  you  reflect  on  this. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  6, 1S40. 

Sir  :  From  the  situation  in  which  the  suits  upon  the  penal  bonds  from 
Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  are  placed,  I  think  it  expedient  that  pro- 
ceedings should  be  taken  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  to 
recover  a  forfeiture.  I  have,  therefore,  to  request  that  you  commence  a  suit 
under  that  section,  and  hold  the  parties  to  bail  in  the  sum  of  $20,000. 

As  there  has  been  some  negotiation  between  F.  B.  Cutting,  Esq.,  and  my- 
self, in  reference  to  arranging  the  controversy,  it  is  proper,  perhaps,  that 
you  should  apprize  him  of  the  instructions  before  issuing  the  writ. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


319 


Custo:-.i-House,  New  York,  July  28,  1S40. 

Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  schedule  of  nineteen  free  entries  of  Messrs.  De  Casse, 
Miege,  &  Co.,  commencing  January  31,  1S37,  and  ending  March  16,  1S3S, 
•amounting  in  all  to  1,476,374.02  francs,  equal  to  about  $295,374,  a  great 
portion  of  which  were  no  doubt  dutiable  goods. 

I  wish  you  to  declare  them  forfeited,  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of 
1799,  as  soon  as  you  conveniently  can.    I  also  send  you  the  entries. 

The  entries  were  ail  sworn  to  before  D.  S.  Lyon,  then  a  deputy  in  this 
•office.  You  will  find  on  the  back  of  each  entry,  in  pencil  mark,  the  number 
of  packages  in  each  entry ;  and  in  all  cases  where  the  number  of  packages 
•ordered  to  the  appraisers'  store  for  examination  is  not  set  down,  there  was 
.but  one  case  sent,  except  in  one  entry  of  two  packages,  where  none  were 
^ordered,  all  of  which  will  appear  in  the  schedule  now  sent. 

You  are  aware  that  the  law  requires  that  one  package  at  least  out  of 
every  invoice,  and  one  out  of  every  twenty  packages,  should  be  sent  to  the 
^public  store  for  examination. 

You  will  therefore  observe  how  the  requirements  of  the  law  have  been 
in  these  instances  overlooked  and  disregarded. 

You  have  already  some  entries  in  your  office  of  the  same  firm,  which 
you  can  include  in  the  declarations  if  you  think  proper. 

Respectfullv, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  Slates  District  Attorney. 

P.  S.  The  entry  by  the  Utica,  of  August  S,  1S37,  is  a  copy.  The  original 
is  in  my  possession. 

J.  H. 


320  Rep.  No.  669. 

A. 


Schedule  of  entries  of  De  Casse,  Miege,  <$*  Co. 


No.  ordered 

Date  of  entry. 

Name  of  vessel. 

No.  of  pack- 
ages. 

Amount  of  invoice. 

for  exami- 
nation. 

1837. 

January  31 

Charlemagne 

2S 

78,105.30  frs. 

1 

January  31 

Charles  Carroll 

45 

120,345.40 

1 

January-  31 

Henry  IV  - 

20 

69,197.50 

1 

February  7 

Sully 

55 

137,933.52 

March  10 

Formosa     -       '  - 

24 

S6,319.00 

1 

March  JO 

Erie 

17 

47,805.65 

March     1 6 

Sylvie  de  Grasse 

26 

59,034,50 

1 

March     1 7 

Poland 

11 

3S,006.52 

1 

March  25 

Albany 

14 

60,838.00 

April  1 

Havre 

31 

48,500.00 

July  18 

Baltimore  - 

28 

69,728.00 

1 

July  29 

Louis  Phillippe 

27 

86,343.18 

August  8 

Utica 

69 

160,075.00 

August  IS 

Burgundy  - 

30 

65,01800 

I 

October  IS 

Erie 

20 

20,7SS.00 

1  o  Jo. 

January  9 
Feb'ry  12 

Ville  de  Lyons 

28 

1,S51.70 

none 

Svlvie  de  Grasse 

31 

92,738.70 

Feb'ry  20 

Erie 

36 

94,618.45 

2 

March  16 

Albany 

21 

47,202.60 

1 

March    1 6 

Louis  Phillippe 

41 

91,472.00 

o 

1,476,871.02 

Custom-House,  New  York, 

Sept ember  2S,  1840. 
Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  26th  instant,  in  relation  to  the  claim  of 
the  informer  on  the  proceeds  of  some  goods  which  were  seized  in  your  port, 
as  having  been  imported  by  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  into  this  port. 

I  hereby  consent  that  the  share  of  the  informer  be  paid  to  him;  and  I 
will  sign  any  formal  consent,  to  carry  this  into  effect,  that  may  be  required. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read,  Esq., 

United  States  Dis'tJltt'y,  Philadelphia. 


Rep.  No.  669.  321 


HOYT'S  CORRESPONDENCE  RELATIVE  TO  J.  BOTTOMLY,  JR.'S  GOODS. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  April  23,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  schedule  of  packages  of  goods  now  in  the  public 
store  at  No.  17  Nassau  street,  to  the  number  of  15,  which  I  wish  you  to 
proceed  against  with  all  despatch,  as  forfeited  to  the  United  States.  The 
same  were  imported  by  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  whose  store  is  at  No.  97 
Pearl  street.  The  goods  were  entered  at  the  custom-house  of  the  value 
of  £904  17s.  Id.,  and  the  entry  made  30th  March  last,  and  were  imported 
in  ship  Roscoe,  as  we  suppose  ;  but-,  as  the  entry  has  been  abstracted  from 
this  office  as  well  as  the  naval  office,  we  are  without  accurate  knowledge 
on  the  subject,  but  it  appears  from  the  appraisers'  books  that  the  gross 
invoice  was  the  amount  last  stated.  The  duties  have  not  been  paid.  The 
appraised  value,  as  you  will  see  by  the  enclosed,  is  £1,403  14s.  6d. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  23,  1838. 
Sir  :  You  were  present  when  a  disclosure  was  made  to  me  last  evening, 
touching  some  fraudulent  transactions  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  at  the  custom- 
house.   I  wish  you  to  take  all  legal  measures  to  bring  the  offender  to 
justice. 

I  have  caused  to  be  seized  a  quantity  of  cloths  in  his  store  at  97  Pearl 
street,  and  which  have  been  received  at  the  public  store,  a  particular  ac- 
count of  which  I  will  send  you  hereafter.  I  desire  proceedings  to  be  insti- 
tuted to  forfeit  these  goods. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

,  United  States  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  25,  1S3S. 

Sir  :  Mr.  James  Bottomly,  jr.  [was]  recently  a  large  importer  of  woollen 
goods  in  this  city.  He  fled  the  city  yesterday,  and  he  may  be  with  you. 
His  agents  may  be  ascertained  by  inquiring  of  Crosdale,  Hazlehurst,  &  Co., 
corner  of  Chesnut  and  First  streets. 

Kis  packages  were  marked  B,  and  numbered  from  830  to  1,300,  and 
contained  cloths  and  cassimeres.  I  wish  a  trusty  officer  to  be  employed  to 
make  the  examination,  and  if  any  goods  are  found  to  answer  the  descrip- 
tion, I  wish  measures  taken  to  forfeit  them  to  the  United  States. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 


322 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Philadelphia,  April  26,  1S33. 
Sir  :  Upon  the  receipt  of  your  favor  of  yesterday,  I  requested  the  dep- 
uty collector  to  send  an  experienced  oilicer,  with  the  marshal  of  this  dis- 
trict, to  make  the  proper  search  for  the  packages  mentioned  in  your  letter. 

The  result  of  the  joint  inquiry  is  contained  in  a  letter  of  the  marshal's, 
just  written,  {2\  P.  M.,)  a  copy  of  which  I  send  you. 

I  should  be  happy  to  know  how  these  goods  became  liable  to  forfeiture, 
and  under  what  act  of  Congress. 

Bottomly,  I  presume,  will  be  off  to-da]'. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  M.  READ, 

United  States  Attorney. 

Jesse  Hovt,  Esq.,  Collector,  New  York. 


Copy  of  the  marshal's  letter  to  John  M.  Read,  Esq. 

Your  directions  relative  to  packages  of  goods  marked  B,  and  numbered 
from  S30  to  1,300,  supposed  to  have  been  sent  to  this  city  by  James  Bot- 
tomly, jr.,  of  New  York,  have  been  attended  to.  Upon  diligent  search, 
made  in  company  with  Mr.  Reefe,  of  the  custom-house,  I  have  been  un- 
able to  discover  any  packages  corresponding  either  in  letter  or  number  with 
those  designated.  An  examination  made  at  the  office  of  the  Union  Trans- 
portation Company  satisfies  me,  however,  that  four  cases,  marked  W  1  & 
4,  were  shipped  by  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  and  sent  or  consigned  to  Uavies, 
Stevenson,  &  Co.,  auctioneers,  of  this  city,  about  the  19th  instant,  as  an 
entry  to  that  effect  is  contained  on  the  way  or  freight  bill  of  said  line  for 
that  date.  There  is  good  reason  for  believing  that  Mr.  Bottomly  was  in 
this  city  at  the  time  the  examination  was  going  on  this  morning. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  25,  1833, 
Sir:  Mr.  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  a  large  importer  of  woollens,  late  of  this 

city,  has  been  practising  extensive  frauds  on  the  revenue  of  this  city,  as 

we  have  every  reason  to  believe. 

He  is  supposed  to  have  fled  the  city,  and  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  he 

was  with  you.   Mr.  Hoffman,  the  auctioneer,  and  William  Taylor  &  Co.,  of 

your  city,  are  his  agents,  and  it  is  supposed  he  has  a  large  amouut  of  goods 

in  their  hands. 

The  packages  are  marked  B,  and  numbered  from  S30  to  1,300.  I  wish 
you  to  employ  some  trusty  officer  to  make  an  examination  into  the  premises, 
and  if  you  find  any  thing  that  looks  suspicious  I  desire  you  to  take  meas- 
ures to  forfeit  the  goods.    They  are  cloths  and  cassimeres. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Nathaniel  W illiams, 

United  States  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


Rep.  TsTo.  669. 


323 


Custom-House,  New  York,  ApHl  26,  1S3S. 
Sir  :  I  addressed  you  yesterday,  on  the  subject  of  James  Bottomly  jr. 
I  have  since  understood  that  he  has  from  $50,000  to  #f00j000  worth  of 
goods  in  the  possession  of  S.  C.  &  J.  Ford,  of  your  city.  Will  you  make 
inquiries  upon  the  subject,  and  proceed  if  there  are  any  of  the  packages 
described  in  my  letter  of  yesterday. 

Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read,  Esq.,  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  27,  1S3S. 
Sir:  I  have  your  favor  of  yesterday.  I  understand  Messrs.  Stevens  &  Co. 
or  some  other  auction  house  in  your  city,  sold  on  Tuesday  last  a  large 
amount  of  goods  of  Bottomly's.  If  so,  I  would  seize  the  goods,  if  the  pur- 
chasers have  not  in  fact  paid  for  them.  French  goods  were  shipped  yester- 
day by  the  steamboat  Swan.  The  wrapper  is  marked  and  the  inside 
B  D     T)  B 

mark  is  ^   or  ^     I  wish  all  these  with  either  of  these  marks  seized,  and 

dealt  with  according  to  law.  The  French  goods  were  consigned  to  Davies, 
Stevenson,  &  Co.  If  Bottomly  is  in  your  city,  arrest  him  and  hold  him  to 
bail  for  $10,000.  I  will  send  you  an  affidavit  of  "  belief  that  he  is  justly 
indebted  to  the  United  States  in  that  sum,"  if  your  practice  requires  this 
form. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read, 

U.  S.  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 

N.  B.  If  the  wrapper  marked  is  taken  off,  you  must  be  careful  to 

preserve  it,  as  it  forms  a  part  of  the  proof.  J.  H. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  27,  1838. 

Sir  :  I  think  Mr.  Bottomly  is  now  in  your  city  ;  if  so,  I  wish  you  to  hold 
him  to  bail  for  $10,000,  and  I  will  send  you  an  affidavit  for  this  purpose, 
that  "  I  believe  him  to  be  indebted  to  the  United  States  in  that  sum." 

He  has,  in  the  course  of  the  week,  in  all  human  probability,  sold  the 
goods  in  your  city,  at  auction;  if  they  have  not  been  paid  for  by  the  pur- 
chasers, I  Avish  them  seized. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Nathaniel  Williams,  Esq., 

U.  A'.  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


Rep.  No.  650. 


Marshal's  Office,  Philadelphia,  April  27,  1838. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  have  been  requested  by  Mr.  Read,  (U.  S.  attorney,)  who 
is  too  much  engaged  professionally  to  write  himself,  to  drop  you  a  line,  and  in- 
form you  that  Davies,  Stevenson,  &  Co.,  auctioneers,  of  this  city,  have  ad- 
vertised a  peremptory  sale  of  400  pieces  imported  cloths,  cassimeres,  &c, 
to  be  held  to-morrow  morning,  at  10  o'clock.  As  it  is  an  ascertained  fact 
that  this  house  received,  by  the  Union  Transportation  Line,  from  New  York, 
on  the  19th  instant,  some  bales  of  merchandise  from  James  Bottomly,  jr., 
Mr.  Read  thinks  it  probable  that  the  cloths,  &c,  advertised  for  sale  are  a 
part  of  the  goods  referred  to  in  your  letter  of  the  25th,  and  he  suggests  the 
propriety  of  your  sending  on,  express,  some  individual  through  whose 
agency  they  may  be  identified,  if  such  a  thing  is  practicable. 
Respectfully,  &c. 

SAMUEL  D.  PATTERSON, 

Marshal  E.  D.  Pennsylvania. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq. 


New  York,  April  27,  183S — Friday  eve'g,  11  o'clock. 

Dear  Sir  :  Your  letter  of  this  morning  has  this  moment  been  put  into 
my  hands.  I  wrote  Mr.  Read  by  mail  this  afternoon,  which  I  trust  lie  will 
receive  early  to-morrow  morning,  stating  that  I  had  understood  the  Messrs. 
Stevenson  &  Co.  had  sold,  on  Tuesday,  a  large  amount  of  goods  belonging 
to  Bottomly.  The  goods  adverted  to  in  your  letter  belong,  no  doubt,  to  the 
same  person,  and  have  been  fraudulently  entered  at  the  custom-house  in 
this  city.  I  think,  if  my  letter  should  not  fall  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Read 
before  the  sale  takes  place,  that  you  will  get  this  before  they  shall  have  been 
delivered  to  the  purchasers  ;  then  I  would  desire  they  should  be  seized,  and 
I  have  no  doubt  they  can  be. 

The  boxes  or  bales  in  which  they  were  sent  to  your  city  should  be  care- 
fully preserved.  The  marks  are  B,  and  numbered  from  830  to  1,300.  '  I 
will,  on  being  informed  of  their  seizure,  send  some  person  on  to  identify 
them.  The  enclosed  paragraph,  from  the  "  American''  of  this  evening, 
gives  you  a  tolerably  correct  idea  of  the  manner  by  which  this  fraud  has 
been  perpetrated,  though  I  know  not  how  it  came  to  the  knowledge  of  the 
editor. 

I  have  not  time  to  take  a  copy  of  this  letter,  and  I  have  to  request  that 
you  will  be  so  good  as  to  send  me  a  copy  of  it  by  return  mail,  or  as  soon  as 
your  leisure  will  permit  you  to  make  a  copy  for  that  purpose. 

I  wrote  to  Baltimore  by  the  mail  of  to-day,  and  if  you  should  make  any 
discovery  that  will  tend  to  visit  the  power  of  the  law  upon  the  individual 
referred  to,  I  desire  that  you  will  write  to  the  marshal  or  district  attorney 
at  Baltimore,  and,  if  Bottomly  can  be  found,  arrest  him,  and  hold  him  to 
bail  in  the  sum  of  $10,000,  and  1  will  forward  an  affidavit  for  that  purpose. 
I  [sent]  the  cutter  in  search  for  him  in  the  bay,  but  I  am  inclined  to  be- 
lieve he  is  in  your  city  or  Baltimore. 

It  is  a  fraud  of  such  a  character  as  requires  the  utmost  vigilance  of  the 
officers  of  Government  to  bring  the  offender  to  justice. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Samuel  D.  Patterson,  Esq. 


Kep.  No.  669. 


325 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  28,  1838. 
Sir:  I  have  positive  information  that  Bottomly  has  a  large  amount  of 
goods  in  Hoffman  &  Co.'s  auction  store,  and  that  no  advance  has  been 
made  upon  them.    I  wish  them  seized  in  my  name  forthwith.  Messrs. 
Hoffman  &  Co.  will  give  you  all  facility. 

The  original  packages,  with  the  marks,  whether  empty  or  not,  to  the  end 
that  we  will  prove  that  certain  goods  came  from  certain  packages. 
I  trust  to  your  vigilance  for  ail  parties  concerned. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  1I0YT,  Collector. 

Nathaniel  Williams,  Esq., 

United  Stales  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  28,  1838. 
Sir  :  Mr.  George  A.  Wasson,  a  special  deputy  for  this  purpose  appoint- 
ed, leaves  this  afternoon  in  the  mail  line,  and  will  be  in  your  city  early 
to-morrow  morning,  to  look  after  the  affairs  concerning  which  I  have 
written  you  for  the  last  few  days. 

I  beg  you  will  afford  all  possible  energy  in  the  matter  referred  to. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.'HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read,  Esq., 

United  Stutis  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  28,  1838 

Sir  :  Mr.  George  A.  Wasson,  a  special  deputy,  will  proceed  to  Philadel 
phia  to  take  charge  of  the  matters  referred  to  in  your  letter  of  yesterday. 
He  is  acquainted  with  the  circumstances,  and  will  detail  them  all. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Samuel  D.  Patterson,  Esq., 

United  States  Marshal,  Philadelphia. 


Marshal's  Office,  Philadelphia,  April  28,  1S38. 

Dear  Sir  :  Your  letter  of  last  night  was  received  at  1  P.  M.  to-day.  I 
had,  however,  prior  to  its  receipt,  proceeded,  in  company  with  Mr.  Kern, 
the  deputy  collector  of  this  port,  to  make  further  search  for  the  goods 
supposed  to  have  been  forwarded  to  this  city  by  Bottomly. 

On  visiting  the  auction  house  of  Davies,  Stevenson,  &  Co.,  I  was  again 
assured  that  they  had  on  hand  no  goods  or  property  belonging  to  Bot- 
tomly, and  they  also  declared  that  all  the  goods  they  have  received  on 
consignment  from  him  had  been  sold,  delivered,  and  paid  for. 

Further  diligent  examination  was  also  made  in  other  quarters,  but  I 
regret  to  say,  that  I  have  been  uable  to  fall  in  with  any  property  that 
circumstances  would  justify  me  in  believing  belonged  to  Bottomly. 


326 


Eep.  No.  669. 


The  clerk  at  the  transportation  office  of  the  line  with  which  the  steam- 
boat is  connected  made  careful  examination  of  his  freight  list,  but  we 
Avere  unable  to  ascertain  that  Davies,  Stevenson,  &  Co.,  or  any  other 
auction  house  of  this  city,  had  received  any  consignment  bearing  the  marks 
referred  to  in  your  letter  of  yesterday  to  Mr.  Read. 

Writs  were  this  morning  placed  in  my  hands  for  the  arrest  of  Mr.  Bot- 
tomly.  The  individual  bearing  that  name,  who  was  here  at  the  time  our 
examinations  commenced,  appears  to  have  been  a  brother  of  the  one  you 
desire  to  have  arrested. 

He  left  this  city  some  time  yesterday,  as  I  learn,  on  his  return  to  New 
York. 

Regretting  that  I  have  no  information  of  a  more  satisfactory  character 
to  communicate,  I  remain,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

SAMUEL  D.  PATTERSON, 
Marshal  E.  D.  Pennsylvania. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.. 

Collector,  <$•£.,  New  York. 


Sir  :  I  duly  received  yours  of  the  26th  instant  yesterday,  and  yours  of 
yesterday  this  morning,  and  communicated  them  to  the  marshal,  who, 
accompanied  by  our  deputy  collector,  made  the  proper  inquiries. 
The  result  you  have  above. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  vour  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  M.  READ, 

United  States  Attorney. 


District  Attorney's  Office, 

Baltimore,  April  30,  1838. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  have  received  your  three  letters  of  the  25th,  27th,  and  28th 
instant,  relative  to  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  and  have  lost  no  time  in  inquir- 
ing after  him  and  the  merchandise  fraudulently  entered. 

I  can  find  neither  him  nor  any  of  his  importations,  nor,  except  between 
$300  and  $400,  any  funds  of  his  in  this  city. 

Mr.  Wasson,  your  agent,  and  I,  visited  the  three  establishments  where 
alone  his  property  was  likely  to  be. 

We  were  forced  to  conclude  that  he  really  had  no  goods  here.  Mr. 
Wasson  went  in  the  morning,  with  my  son,  to  Messrs  Hoffman  &  Co.'s,  and 
I  accompanied  him  again  in  the  evening.  We  had  full  conversations  with 
these  gentlemen.  Their  last  sales  for  Bottomly  were  on  the  17th  instant, 
and  they  now  owe  him  nothing. 

I  should, but  for  the  advice  of  Mr.  Wasson,  and  our  renewed  inquiries,have 
made  seizures  of  such  broadcloths,  &c,  as  they  had  in  store.  Mr.  Wasson 
will  detail  to  you  the  result  of  our  inquiries  and  examinations.  I  thought 
of  sending  you  a  form  of  an  affidavit,  preparatory  to  issuing  attachments, 
and  laying  them  in  the  hands  of  Hoffman  and  others ;  but  at  present  there 
is  no  encouragement  for  even  this  proceeding,  which  incurs  but  slight  costs 
and  no  risks  of  damages.    Process  is  still  out  against  J.  Bottomly ;  Mr. 


Bep.  No.  669. 


327 


WassoM  is  pretty  sure  that  he  is  not  in  Baltimore.  His  brother,  Wrn. 
Bottoml y,  is,  or  was  on  Saturday,  here. 

Very  trulv,  yours, 

NATHANIEL  WILLIAMS. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq. 

P.  S.  Any  further  suggestions  or  instructions  of  yours  will  be  attended 
to  promptly. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  11,  1S38. 
Sir  :  Mr.  Miller,  the  counsel  of  Mr.  Bottomly,  showed  me  a  copy  of  an 
order  made  by  the  district  court  in  the  case  of  the  United  States  against  a 
certain  quantity  of  woollen  goods  claimed  by  Mr.  Bottomly,  to  the  effect 
that  the  goods  should  be  delivered  to  Mm  on  giving  bond  for  the  appraised 
value  thereof.  It  would  appear  that  the  order  had  been  entered  by 
consent.  I  will  give  immediate  direction  to  have  the  appraisement. 
There  are  two  parcels  of  goods  under  seizure,  claimed  by  Mr.  Bottomly; 
the  one  parcel  consists  of  259  pieces  taken  from  his  store,  and  which  have 
not  been  examined  or  appraised  further  than  to  ascertain  that  they  had 
been  fraudulently  entered ;  and  the  other  parcel,  consisting  of  15  packages, 
were  examined  by  one  of  the  appraisers,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining, 
not  what  their  value  was  here,  but  for  the  purpose  of  seeing  at  how  much 
less  than  their  actual  cost  they  had  been  enteied  by  the  importer,  Mr. 
Bottomly. 

He  contrived,  through  means  which  I  explained  to  you  on  a  former 
occasion,  to  abstract  the  entry  and  the  invoice  from  the  custom-house.  It' 
the  goods  are  to  be  bonded,  we  must  ascertain  the  value  here,  and  to  that 
end  I  will  have  them  appraised  at  once,  under  the  67th  section  of  the  act 
of  1799,  and  will  send  you  the  result,  so  that  there  shall  be  no  delay  in 
giving  possession  of  the  goods  to  the  claimant,  if  the  requisition  of  the  act 
is  complied  with. 

I  enclose  you  the  correspondence  with  Mr.  Bottomly,  on  the  subject  of 
the  entry  and  invoice. 

The  entry  was  seen  last  in  his  hands  at  the  custom-house. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  June  )2,  183S. 
Sir  :  The  proctor  for  the  claimant  of  3  packages  of  cassimeres,  marked 
and  numbered  B  ||  12S3,  12S4,  1296,  and  12  packages  of  cloths,  B||  1285, 
12S6,  1287,  12SS,  12S9,  1290,  1291,  1292,  1293,  1294,  1295,  1297,  import- 
ed by  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  has  given  notice  of  a  motion  that  the  goods  be 
appraised  under  the  rules  of  the  district  court,  and  upon  filing  a  bond  stip- 
ulation, and  complying  with  the  rule  in  other  respects,  be  restored  to  the 
claimant. 


328 


Hep.  No.  669. 


Apprehensive  that  the  true  value  would  not  be  ascertained,  if  the  ap- 
praisement was  confided  to  the  persons  designated  by  the  rule,  I  proposed 
to  the  proctor  (who  had  acquiesced)  that  the  bond  should  be  given  in  the 
amount  of  the  custom-house  appraisement,  which  I  supposed  had  already  I 
been  made.  The  claimant  will  apply  this  day  to  have  the  goods  appraised 
under  the  direction  of  the  43d  rule  of  the  district  court.  I  again  urge  upon 
you  the  indispensable  necessity  of  having  all  the  Bottornly  goods  examined 
forthwith  and  without  delay,  under  the  67th  section  of  the  act  of  1799. 

Let  Mr.  Wasson  attend  the  examination,  take  samples,  and  see  that 
they  are  connected  with  the  result  of  the  examination,  so  as  to  enable  him 
distinctly  to  identify  it  on  the  trial.  This  ought  to  be  done  this  day.  I 
beg  you  to  select  two  intelligent  merchants,  whose  testimony  will  be  per- 
fectly clear.  Useful  evidence  may  also  be  obtained  by  tracing  the  goods, 
after  they  are  delivered  to  Bottornly,  into  the  hands  of  purchasers,  by  whom 
the  prices  may  be  shown. 

I  again  request  the  strict  observance  of  the  within  suggestions. 

I  am,  &c. 

WM.  M.  PRICE, 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  6,  1S3S. 
Sir  :  We  are  beginning  to  reap  the  benefits  from  the  discovery  we  made 
of  the  frauds  practised  at  this  office.  We  began  on  the  6th  of  April  to  send 
all  woollens  to  the  public  store  for  examination.  After  this,  many  persons 
suffered  their  goods  to  go  to  the  public  store,  from  the  ship,  on  general  or- 
der— that  is,  m  fifteen  days  after  the  entry  of  the  vessel  in  which  they 
came. 

They  are  now  beginning  to  be  claimed  ;  and  to-day  an  entry  was  made 
for  15  packages,  of  the  value  of  £2,120  3s.  2d.  We  got  possession  of  the 
cockets  from  the  ship  on  her  arrival,  by  which  it  appears  that  their  value 
was  sworn  to  at  Liverpool,  on  the  30th  of  April,  at  £995,  and  that  they 
paid  there  an  ad  valorem  duty  accordingly,  by  which  he  defrauded  his 
own  Government  out  of  £5  15.9.,  and  designed  to  defraud  ours  out  of 
$2,74S.  The  same  party  makes  another  entry  to-day  with  about  the  same 
results.  Tiie  concern  have  entered  within  the  last  fifteen  months  600  pack- 
ages, on  which  we  have  been  defrauded  about  $250  a  package — making,  in 
all,  about  $1 50,000,  as  we  estimate  ;  and  I  do  not  know  that  we  have  any 
redress.  The  goods  were  originally  shipped  to  order,  and  James  Bottornly 
was  in  the  habit  of  presenting  bills  of  lading  endorsed  to  him.  We  ar- 
rested him  for  fraud,  and  he  gave  bail  and  fled.  His  bonds  have  been  for- 
feited, and  he  was  indicted  at  the  last  term  of  the  court,  (last  week.)  His 
brother  (William  Bottornly)  now  presents  bills  of  lading  endorsed  to  him, 
and  he  enters  the  goods.  1  do  not  see  that  we  have  any  redress.  Leech 
&  Harrison  enter  the  goods  there  for  exportation.  I  do  not  know  whether 
the  comity  of  nations  does  or  not  require  this  Government  to  communicate 
the  evidence  of  the  fraud  upon  the  British  Government,  to  that  Govern- 
ment.   I  submit  the  case  for  your  consideration. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Eep.  No.  669. 


329 


Treasury  Department,  August  9,  183S. 

Sir  :  I  beg  leave  to  return  you  my  thanks  for  the  information  commu- 
nicated in  your  letter  of  the  6th  instant. 

I  would  recommend  you  to  pursue  all  frauds,  of  the  nature  referred  to, 
to  the  utmost  extent  of  the  law ;  and  any  aid  or  advice  you  may  stand  in 
need  of  will  be  cheerfully  rendered  you  by  the  district  attorney  and  Soli- 
citor of  the  Treasury  ;  and,  if  found  necessary,  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney 
General,  upon  any  doubtful  points,  can  be  taken  through  the  Department. 

I  would  especially  recommend  you  to  keep  a  vigilant  eye  on  all  those 
persons  who  may  be  connected  in  any  way  with  the  detected  offenders. 

I  think  it  might  be  well  for  you  to  write  to  the  collector  at  Liverpool, 
or  to  our  consul  at  that  port,  in  reference  to  the  fraud  practised  there,  to 
which  you  allude :  it  may  be  a  means  of  obtaining  good  services  in  return 
for  the  protection  of  our  own  revenue. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  22,  1S38. 
'  Sir  :  I  have  not  yet  received  an  answer  to  my  communication  of  the  15th 
instant ;  and  I  now  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and 
ask  for  your  especial  action  thereon.  In  the  month  of  April  I  made  two 
affidavits  in  the  case  of  James  Bottomly,  jr. ;  one  alleging  that  he  had  been 
guilty  of  bribery,  and  the  other  of  perjury  at  the  custom-house.  On  these 
affidavits  warrants  were  issued,  and  he  was  arrested.  Subsequently  it  wa's 
understood  that  he  had  absconded.  The  marshal  having  made  the  arrest, 
he  must  either  be  liable  for  an  escape,  or  must  produce  the  security  he  took 
on  permitting  him  to  go.  I  find,  by  examination  of  the  minutes  of  the 
circuit  court  of  the  United  States,  that,  on  the  2d  of  August  last,  "the  pris- 
oner was  called  and  did  not  appear,  and  that  his  recognizance  was  for- 
feited." This  would  show  that  a  recognizance  was  taken,  else  it  could  not 
have  been  forfeited.  If  this  be  so,  I  ask  you  to  prosecute  that  recogni- 
zance, or  in  some  way  to  account  for  it.  If  the  marshal  has  received  it,  let 
it  be  paid  over  to  some  one,  and  surely  the  law  must  designate  the  person 
to  whom  it  should  be  paid.  If  paid  into  court,  the  clerk  will  know  what  to 
do  with  it ;  and  if  paid  to  the  district  attorney,  I  think  he  would  inform 
himself  as  to  the  proper  destination,  if  he  does  not  already  know.  I  under- 
take to  say  that  there  is  no  act  in  relation  to  "  flues,  penalties,  and  forfeit- 
ures," that  authorizes  the  marshal  to  hold  the  money  for  one  moment. 
The  law  constitutes  the  collector  the  general  recipient  for  the  money  in  such, 
cases,  and  he  is  responsible  to  the  Government  for  its  share,  as  well  as  for 
the  share  belonging  to  the  officers  of  the  customs,  if  any  such  share  there 
be.  I  instruct  you,  therefore,  as  the  legal  officer  of  the  United  States  in 
this  district,  to  take  such  steps  as  may  be  necessary  to  vindicate  the  laws 
and  the  rights  of  the  parties  interested  in  the  case. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 

\ 


330 


Hep. -No.  689. 


Custom-House,  New  Ygrk,  October  25,  183S. 
Sir  :  In  addition  to  my  previous  communications,  and  particularly  (hose 
of  June  Hth,  19th,  and  25th,  and  of  July  2Gth,  in  relation  to  the  case  of 
seizure  of  the  goods  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  I  have  now  the  honor  to  state 
that  you  will  observe  that  the  15  cases  under  seizure  were  marked  from 
1283*to  1297. 

About  the  time  of  the  seizure,  the  same  parties  had  goods  arriving,  and 
were  on  the  manifest  to  order,  as  most  of  the  goods  are,  shipped  under  sim- 
ilar circumstances. 

I  now  annex  a  schedule  of  goods  that  came  in  the  same  way,  with  the 
names  of  the  vessels,  and  the  time  they  were  put  in  public  store  : 


Ships. 

Marks  and  Nos.  of 

Cases. 

Sent  to  public  store  on  general 

packages. 

order. 

Hibernia 

B  129S  to  1316 

19 

April  21  and  24, 1S3S. 

Sheffield 

B  1317  to  1335 

17 

April  26, 27,  and  May  2,  3. 

Columbus 

B  1334  to  1345 

12 

April  2,  3. 

Sheridan 

B  1346  to  1355 

10 

May  2. 

George  Washington 

B  1356  to  1369 

14 

May  4,  7. 

These  goods  were  not  entered  till  August,  and  then  by  William  Bottomly. 
Before,  the  seizure,  they  were  in  the  habit  of  entering  these  goods  at  an 
average  of  £65  a  package  ;  after  tjie  seizure,  they  found  it  necessary  to  send 
'to  England  for  new  invoices,  and  they  appear  to  be  sworn  to  on  the  18th 
July,  before  the  consul  at  Liverpool. 

The  goods  were  entered  in  August,  at  from  £109  to  £145.  I  have  the 
cocketsby  the  Hibernia  and  the  Sheridan,  by  which  it  will  be  seen  at  what 
value  the  goods  were  entered  at  Liverpool  for  exportation  ;  and  you  will 
observe  they  are  entered  here,  in  most  instances,  at  more  than  one  hundred 
per  cent,  more  than  they  are  entered  at  for  exportation. 

I  think  this  may  be  gone  into  as  a  part  of  the  6i  res  gesta"  as  a  distin- 
guished judicial  used  to  say. 

I  now  send  you  the  following  papers: 

1.  The  cocket  by  the  Hibernia. 
,  2.  The  like  by  the  Sheffield. 

3.  The  entries  by  the  Hibernia,  George  Washington,  endorsed  the  9th 
August,  1S3S;  by  Sheffield,  6th  August;  by  the  Columbus  and  Sheridan, 
11th  August,  1838. 

4.  The  invoices  by  all  these  vessels. 

I  have  nothing  further  to  add  on  the  subject  of  Mr.  Bottomly. 

^Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


331 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  1,  1838. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  communication  of  the  27th  instant,  presented  by  Gen.. 
McNeil,  in  relation  to  the  case  of  Bottomly.  I  regret  to  say  that  we  have 
not  yet  tried  any  of  the  cases  of  goods  seized  by  my  orders,  and  which 
have  been  claimed  by  him.  He  was  indicted  at  the  July  term  of  the 
circuit  court  of  the  United  States,  for  perjury  and  bribery.  He  did  not 
appear,  and  his  bonds  were  forfeited.  The  cases  in  rem  have  not  yet  been 
tried  ;  and,  as  I  am  not  responsible  for  that,  I  will  not  attempt  to  assign 
any  reason  for  it.  As  to  the  question  of  fraud,  and  that  too  of  the  most 
glaring  character,  I  have  no  doubt ;  but  the  difficulty  is  in  establishing  it 
by  competent  proof.  In  relation  to  the  unbroken  packages,  of  which  I 
have  15  under  seizure,  we  cannot  fail  in  succeeding  ;  but  we  have  also  under 
seizure  259  pieces  of  cloth,  taken  from  his  store,  which  we  have  no  means 
of  identifying  with  the  entries,  because  the  original  numbers  or  "  tags7' 
have  been  taken  off,  and  others  substituted  in  their  place ;  and  hence  it  is 
utterly  impossible  to  identify  them.  Such,  I  apprehend,  is  the  case  with 
those  under  seizure  in  your  port.  The  practice  of  this  individual  was  to 
take  the  goods  to  his  own  store  as  soon  as  he  got  possession  of  them,  af- 
ter going  through  the  forms  of  the  custom-house,  to  open  the  packa- 
ges, take  off  the  original  numbers  on  the  pieces  and  substitute  others,  and 
put  on  the  shelves  for  sale,  destroy  the  original  packages  in  which  they 
were  imported,  or  obliterate  the  marks  and  numbers  upon  them,  and  thereby 
destroy  all  traces  of  identity.  As  to  the  packages  that  are  unbroken,  which 
I  have  under  seizure,  they  had  not  the  opportunity  to  go  through  with  the 
modus  operandi,  for  they  never  left  the  public  store  ;  so  that  I  can  identify 
them.  I  explained  the  matter  more  fully  in  a  personal  conversation  with 
General  McNeil  than  I  have  here  given  it  to  you  •  but,  from  what  I  have 
written,  you  will  be  able  to  appreciate  the  difficulty  you  will  have  in  con- 
demning the  goods  you  have  under  seizure. 

You  may,  however,  be  able  to  succeed  better  in  your  district  than  ice 
can  here  ;  for  our  court  is  very  much  of  a  mercantile  court,  and  the  juries,, 
as  a  matter  of  course,  always  go  against  the  Government,  and  will  con- 
tinue to  do  so  as  long  as  it  is  the  fashion  of  the  day  to  consider  the  Gov- 
ernment as  opposed  to  the  merchants.  In  other  words,  when  the  merchants 
are  the  jurors  and  witnesses,  God  help  the  Government ! 

Verv  respectful!  v,  &c. 

J.  HOYT. 

G.  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Collector,  Boston. 


District  Attorney's  Office? 

Baltimore,  May  4,  1838. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  am  mortified  thatf  wc  have  not  been  able  to  effect  any  dis- 
closures here  relative  to  Bottomly's  goods.    Have  you  not  possession  of 
any  of  his  books  or  papers,  whereby  his  transactions  in  this  city  may  be 
traced  ? 

Would  it  not  be  worth  while  to  lay  attachments  in  the  hands  of  those 
with  whom  he  has  recently  had  dealings?    They  would  be  required  to 
answer  on  oath.    The  Hoffmans  admit  the  small  sum  of  between  $300 
and  $  100,  which  is  in  a  note  to  become  due. 
10* 


332 


Rep.  No.  669. 


I  was  in  hopes  you  had  possession  of  some  papers  or  correspondence 
of  Bottomiy's. 

Respectfully,  yours, 


NATH.  WILLIAMS. 


J.  Hoyt,  Esq. 


Custom-House,  New  York.  May  29,  1839. 

Sir  :  You  have  a  large  quantity  of  papers  in  your  office  in  relation  to 
Bottomiy's  case.  Such  as  belong  to  this  office  I  would  be  obliged  if  you 
would  select  and  return  them. 

Respectfully,  &c. 


B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


J.  HOYT,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  31,  1839. 

Sir:  On  the  26th  May,  1838,  I  reported  to  you  ten  cases  of  seizures, 
made  by  me  at  various  times  between  the  21st  April  and  the  15th  May 
of  that  year.  On  the  19th  of  the  same  month  of  May,  I  wrote  to  you,  ex- 
plaining why  I  had  not  reported  such  seizures  before  that  time,  and  promis- 
ing to  do  it  at  the  earliest  moment  possible,  which  promise  I  complied  with, 
as  before  stated,  on  the  26th  of  that  month.  From  a  cursory  perusal  of 
my  letter  book,  I  am  not  able  to  say  that  I  have  fully  reported  the  dispo- 
sition of  those  cases,  which  I  now  propose  to  do,  in  the  order  in  which  they 
appear  in  my  letter  of  the  26th  May. 

1st.  The  15  cases  of  woollen  goods  taken  from  Dayton's  store  were  con- 
demned and  sold,  and  the  accounts  furnished  in  my  general  accounts  for  4th 
quarter  of  the  year  1838. 

2d.  The  259  pieces  of  cloth  taken'  from  the  store  of  Bottomly  were  de- 
livered to  his  agent  on  the  23d  of  May  instant,  as  will  be  hereafter  stated. 

3d.  The  15  cases  of  woollens  of  Bottomly  were  tried  in  January  last,  and 
were  condemned  by  the  court  on  the  verdict  of  the  jury,  having  been  long 
before  bonded  under  the  act  of  1799,  when  the  duties  were  paid,  amount- 
ing to  $2,870.  The  counsel  for  the  claimants  took  a  bill  of  exceptions  to 
the  ruling  of  the  court  on  some  points  of  law  raised,  but  which  was  aban- 
doned a  few  days  since,  on  the  condition  that  we  should  relinquish  the  259 
pieces  of  cloth.  ^Ve  were  glad  to  make  the  arrangement,  for  this  reason: 
that  we  had  no  proof  to  condemn  them,  and  quite,  a  scanty  pattern  on  which 
to  claim  from  the  court  a  certificate  of  probable  cause;  and,  under  the  ad- 
vice of  the  district  attorney,  the  officers  of  the  Government  interested  in 
the  seizure  agreed  to  abandon  the  259  pieces  on  the  terms  stated ;  and 
accordingly  the  bond  given  by  the  claimants  for  the  15  cases  was  paid,  and 
the  money  was  this  day  distributed,  and'the  sum  of  $4,721  05  was  paid 
into  this  office,  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  for  its  share  of  forfeiture. 

4th.  The  pistols  and  guns  of  Lewis  Strasser,  have  not  yet  been  tried,  but 
will  be  in  the  June  term  of  the  district  court. 

5th.  The  4  cases  of  hardware  of  E.  Leon  &  Co.  were  tried  at  the  Jan- 
uary term  of  the  district  court,  and  acquitted. 

6th.  The  goods  (viz  :  the  26  packages  taken  from  the  store  of  De  Casse, 


Rep.  No.  669. 


333 


Miege,  &  Co.)  have  not  yet  been  tried,  but  will  be  as  soon  as  the  district 
attorney  can  prepare  them  for  trial. 

7th.  The  cases  of  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  are  disposed  of,  viz  :  30  pack- 
ages, 61  packages,  and  35  packages.  The  dutiable  portion  of  the  goods 
were  appraised  at  over  $27,000  here,  which  of  course  included  the  duty; 
they  were  bonded  thus,  viz:  for  $21,000,  duties  paid  $6,300,  making- 
$27,300  in  three  separate  appraisements ;  and  three  separate  libels  or  in- 
formations were  filed,  all  of  which  amounted  to  the  sum  above  stated, 
viz:  $27,300,  the  reports  of  which,  and  the  money  therefor,  I  received 
yesterday  from  the  clerk  of  the  court,  and  which  were  in  due  form  dis- 
tributed to-day;  the  share  of  the  United  States  to  which  (viz:  $13,650) 
I  this  day  passed  to  their  credit  on  the  books  of  this  office.  In  addition, 
to  the  goods  of  this  house,  the  possession  of  which  I  took  on  the  seizure, 
I  gave  notice  to  them  on  the  26th  of  April,  1S38,  and  at  subsequent 
periods,  to  produce  and  lodge  at  the  appraisers'  store  other  goods  referred 
to  in  the  penal  bonds,  taken  under  the  act,  for  the  forthcoming  of  such 
goods  on  the  demand  of  the  collector.  They,  not  having  complied  with, 
such  demands,  forfeited  those  penal  bonds,  and  suits  were  commenced 
against  them  on  the  same.  We  had  also  a  claim  upon  them,  as  I  contend- 
ed, for  duties  unpaid  and  unsecured,  upon  goods  fraudulently  entered  as 
free,  when  they  should  have  paid  a  duty,  and  to  recover  which  duty  I 
directed  the  district  attorney  to  bring  a  suit.  To  settle  these  latter  claims, 
they  proposed  to  pay  a  certain  sum,  which  was  finally,  by  a  computation, 
made  to  be  $18,354  93,  which  I  agreed  to  accept,  under  the  advice  of  the 
district  attorney  ;  and  it  was  accordingly  paid  to  the  district  attorney,  and 
by  him  paid  to  me  on  the  27th  instant,  and  was  this  day  distributed  ;  and 
the  share  of  the  United  States  to  the  same  (say  $.9,177  47)  was  passed  in 
the  books  of  this  office  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States  this  day ;  which 
said  certain  sums,  as  heretofore  stated,  having  been  passed  to  the  credit  of 
the  United  States,  amount  to  $27,548  51. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  H0YT,  Collector. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq.,  Solicitor,  <§-c. 


Custom-House,  July  22,  1839. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  have  your  favor  of  the  19th  instant,  in  relation  to  the  trial 
of  the  Bottomly  case.  You  need  not  be  apprehensive  of  any  collusion  be- 
tween Campbell  and  the  claimant  of  the  cloths  you  are  about  to  try.  He 
will  avoid  intermeddling  on  either  side,  if  he  can  avoid  it.  By  a  perusal  of 
his  testimony  on  the  trial  here,  you  will  readily  perceive  that  he  is  ready  to 
make  any  statement  to  serve  himself,  ivithout  reference  to  the  truth  of  the 
case  ;  but  he  would  not  dare  to  colleague  with  the  other  side ;  for,  in  that 
event,  he  would  have  violated  the  understanding  (in  a  much  greater  extent 
than  he  had  already  done)  had  with  the  district  attorney  and  myself,  when 
his  confession  was  reduced  to  writing  by  me. 

Mr.  Butler  is  now  out  of  town,  and  will  not  be  back  in  time  for  me  to 
ascertain  whether  the  confession  taken  by  Mr.  Hamilton  could  with  pro- 
priety be  used  on  the  present  occasion.  I  will  therefore  leave  it  for  you 
to  decide,  as  the  case  may  seem  to  require,  with  the  statement  I  now  make 

1st.  It  was  understood,  when  the  confession  was  made,  in  April,  1838,. 


334 


Rep.  No.  669. 


(which  you  now  have  in  my  handwriting.)  that  Mr.  Campbell  was  not  to 
be  prosecuted  for  taking  the  bribe,  provided,  on  the  trial  of  the  cases,  he  tes- 
tified the  truth,  if  called  upon  by  us,  as  a  witness. 

2d.  When  the  cause  was  about  to  be  tried,  in  January  last,  he  was  ex- 
amined by  Mr.  Hamilton,  preparatory  to  his  being  called  as  a  witness,  and  he 
stated  the  truth,  probably,  as  far  as  he  went ;  but,  when  put  to  the  stand,  he 
would  not  testify  fully,  and  what  he  did  state  was  not  the  truth. 

3d.  Under  this  state  of  the  case,  we  oive  Mr.  Campbell  no  protection,  in 
my  judgment  ;  yet  I  would  not  consent,  as  a  public  officer  or  as  an  individ- 
ual, to  do  any  thing  in  this  matter  which  could,  by  any  possibility,  be  con- 
strued into  a  violation  of  good  faith,  because  others  have  violated  theirs. 

Under  this  view  of  the  subject,  I  leave  you  to  act  as  circumstances  may 
require,  with  the  further  remark,  that,  if  you  do  not  feel  yourself  compelled 
to  adopt  the  course  pointed  out  in  your  letter,  I  prefer  you  should  not ;  but, 
if  it  becomes  necessary  to  sustain  your  case,  I  think  you  should  do  it. 

I  sent  yon  Saturday,  just  as  the  mail  was  about  to  close,  copies  from  the 
clerk's  office  of  the  record  of  indictment  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.  I  did  not 
look  at  it  particularly ;  but  it  occurred  to  me,  after  the  mail  had  left,  that  it 
was  not  properly  verified,  so  as  you  would  be  enabled  to  introduce  it  in  evi- 
dence. If  so,  you  may  have  discovered  it  before  this,  and  in  time  to  send 
it  back,  and  the  verification. 

In  haste,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Sidney  Bartlett,  Esq., 

Counsellor  at  Law,  Boston. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  22,  1S39. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  which  did  not  reach  me  till 
this  morning.  I  think  your  judge  is  very  unreasonable  to  require  me  to 
swear  to  that  which  I  cannot  by  possibility  know  except  from  the  information 
of  others.  We  did  not  see  vessel,  captain,  or  passengers,  in  this  port ;  and 
how  can  I  swear  that  I  did  ?  I  cannot  find  the  person  who  knows  this 
fact ;  but  I  presume  it  can  be  proved,  on  the  trial  of  the  cause,  under  a  com- 
mission; and  whether  he  is  held  to  bail  or  not  is  immaterial. 

J  return  you  the  affidavit. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
J.  M.  Read,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney ,  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  23,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  yours  of  yesterday.  Messrs.  Cairns  and  Wasson  went  on 
this  morning  to  take  a  further  look  at  those  matters,  and  no  doubt  are  with 
you  by  this  time.  I  would  thank  you  to  keep  me  advised  of  the  proceed- 
ings therein.  I  shall  not  make  you  a  visit  till  my  officers  return,  when  I 
will  see  you,  and  advise  fully  in  the  matter. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
J.  M.  Read,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Jitlorney,  Philadelphia. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


335 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  30,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  reference  to  the  application  of  Mr.  Bottomly  to  bond  the  goods 
under  seizure  claimed  by  him,  I  have  to  say  : 

1.  That,  in  a  case  of  this  kind,  I  would  recommend  that  all  the  forms  of 
law  should  be  complied  with.  The  89th  section  (and  not  the  79th)  of  the 
act  of  1799  states,  that  "upon  the  prayer  of  any  claimant  to  the  court,'' 
which  seems  to  require  a  formal  petition,  to  be  verified  by  oath,  &c. 

2.  There  may  be  circumstances  attending  a  case  which  will  justify  the 
court  in  refusing  to  permit  the  goods  to  be  bonded.  Such  are  the  circum- 
stances in  the  case  of  Attorney  General  vs.  Laragudy,  2d  Price,  166. 

3.  Can  we  not,  on  this  motive,  take  the  ground  of  the  appraisement 
having  been  already  had,  which,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  is 
conclusive,  and  at  the  same  time  consent  that  the  goods  may  be  bonded, 
upon  the  value  established  by  that  appraisement  ? 

4.  The  act  declares  that  it  shall  be  lawful  for  the  court  to  appoint  three 
proper  persons  to  appraise,  &c.  How  imperative  are  the  words  here  used 
upon  the  court  to  make  that  appointment  ?  If  thero  is  any  discretion  left, 
I  would  be  glad  to  make  a  case  that  would  prevent  another  appraisement. 

I  throw  out  these  suggestions  for  your  consideration.  As  to  the  indi- 
viduals named  in  the  notice,  there  are  objections.  Mr.  Robinson  is  not 
impartial,  as  he  has  himself  goods  under  seizure,  and  has  been  in  the  habit, 
for  a  long  while,  of  receiving  goods  undervalued  ;  and  therefore  his  stand- 
ard of  value  cannot  be  a  correct  one.  I  do  not  think  that  Mr.  March  ever 
imported  a  piece  of  goods,  and  therefore  knows  nothing  of  foreign  value. 
Mr.  Oakey,  the  partner  of  Mr.  Robinson,  is  in  Europe.  I  return  you  the 
notice  sent  me. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


Consulate  of  the  United  States, 

Liverpool,  October  17,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  this  day  received  and  forwarded  the  letter  you  enclosed  to 
me  for  Messrs.  Humphreys,  Cunliffe,  &  Co.,  who  are  among  the  solicitors 
I  employ  in  Manchester  to  administer  oaths  for  the  verification  of  invoices. 
They  are  men  of  respectability,  and,  if  permitted  to  attend  at  the  examina- 
tion, may  be  some  restraint  on  the  commissioners.  In  a  case  of  the  kind, 
however,  which  was  sent  me  some  six  or  eight  years  ago,  they  refused  to 
let  any  counsel  in  behalf  of  the  United  States  be  present ;  in  consequence 
of  which,  I  requested  that,  in  all  future  commissions,  my  name  should  be 
inserted  at  the  head  of  the  list,  if  possible,  but  at  any  rate  to  act  as  one  of 
the  commissioners.  By  this  means,  I  have  been  able  to  have  the  examina- 
tion conducted  fairly  ;  and,  should  there  be  any  appearance  of  collusion,  it 
would  be  in  my  power  to  detect  and  even  prevent  it.  Chancery  commis- 
sions in  this  country  are  conducted  in  private ;  and,  if  such  instructions  be 
given  by  the  judge,  (which  is  frequently  the  case,)  those  from  abroad  will 
also  be  executed  without  any  person  being  present  but  the  commissioners, 
their  clerk,  (who  is  sworn  not  to  divulge  the  testimony,)  and  the  witnesses 
separately.    The  truth  is  much  more  likely  to  be  obtained  in  this  manner  y 


336 


Sep. -No.  669. 


but  no  compulsory  process  can  be  had  to  bring  the  witnesses  forward  :  it 
would  therefore  always  be  well,  after  their  names  are  enumerated  in  the 
commission,  to  have  a  clause  inserted  like  the  following  :  "  and  such  others 
as  the  commissioners  may  summon  before  them."  The  defendants  in  the 
United  States  of  course  name  only  such  men  as  they  know  will  swear  in 
their  favor:  it  is  therefore  of  consequence  that  I  should  have  it  in  my 
power  to  introduce  others,  if  possible,  to  invalidate  their  testimony.  I  feel 
quite  persuaded  that  with  such  powers  I  should  be  able  to  ferret  out  the 
truth.  I  also  made  another  suggestion  in  a  former  case,  which  it  would  be 
very  important  in  any  future  ones  to  have  attended  to;  namely,  to  attach 
to  the  commission,  by  seal  of  the  court,  good  large  samples  of  the  cloth 
under  seizure.  This  will  afford  the  opportunity  of  investigating,  with  great 
nicety,  the  true  value  of  the  articles.  Let  each  piece  of  cloth  be  of  the 
same  size  with  the  piece  of  pape'r  on  which  the  commission  is  writtenr 
which  they  will  serve  as  a  wrapper  to. 

I  beg  to  refer  you  to  my  letters  of  the  10th  and  25th  of  September,  and 
I  beg  to  add,  that  I  have  since  received  information  which  convinces  me 
that  you  have  not  altogether  broken  up  the  system.  I  would  call  your  at- 
tention particularly  to  shipments  made  to  a  man  named  William  Broadbent, 
a  Yorkshireman,  residing  in  New  York,  who  received  consignments  of 
goods  that  I  am  positively  informed  are  undervalued. 

The  suggestions  I  have  made  above  being  attended  to,  my  name,  above 
all,  being  at  the  head  of  the  commission,  and  powers  granted  in  general 
clause  to  introduce  witnesses  not  named  in  it,  will,  I  am  quite  sure,  enable 
me  to  obtain  correct  testimony,  and,  in  consequence,  ensure  a  verdict  for  the 
United  States  ;  for  the  thing  is  openly  acknowledged  and  boasted  of  by  the 
fellows  who  have  been  successful. 

I  should  think  my  information  of  the  31st  of  May,  1838,  if  it  was  instru- 
mental in  procuring  a  judgment  in  the  Bottomly  case,  and  others  of  the 
kind,  would  entitle  me  to  a  participation  in  the  seizures;  at  any  rate,  the 
Wood  case  appears  a  clear  one,  and  you  may  rely  on  my  vigilance  in  fu- 
ture, both  in  giving  notice  and  in  the  establishment  of  the  facts  by  irrefrag- 
able testimony,  whenever  it  is  necessary  to  resort  to  a  commission  for  that 
purpose. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  &c. 

FRANCIS  B.  OGDEN. 

Jesse  Hott,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  15,  1840. 

Sir  :  Understanding  that  the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  for  your 
district  has  affirmed  the  decree  of  the  district  court,  forfeiting  a  quantity  of 
cloths  imported  into  the  district  of  New  York  by  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  it 
becomes  my  duty  to  inform  you  what  are  deemed  to  be  the  rights  of  the 
collector,  naval  officer,  and  surveyor  of  the  port  and  district  of  New  York? 
in  relation  to  that  forfeiture. 

The  officers  last  named  are  advised  that,  by  the  provisions  of  the  91st 
section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  chapter  128,  the  moiety  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  that  forfeiture  belongs  to  them,  as  the  officers  of  the  district  and 
port  wherein  the  forfeiture  was  incurred. 

If  the  clerk  of  the  court,  to  whom  the  proceeds  of  the  forfeiture  is  to  be 


Rep.  No.  669.  337 

paid,  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions,  &c.,  the  90th  section  of  the  same  act 
elects  to  pay  to  you,  as  the  collector  of  the  district  where  the  seizure  was  made, 
you  will  have  the  goodness  to  take  notice  that  I  claim  the  moiety  herein- 
before referred  to  should  be  paid  to  me,  to  be  distributed  according  to  law. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

George  Bancroft,  Esq., 

Collector,  Boston. 


CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING  TO  PROTEST  FUND. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  23,  1839. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  14th  July  last,  in  answer  to  mine  of  the  11th  of 
that  month,  and  also  yours  of  the  13th  instant,  relating  to  the  money  under 
protest,  I  have  not  replied  to  before  now,  for  the  following  reasons  : 
i  1st.  In  reference  to  the  former  letter,  it  was  intimated  therein  that  you 
ntended  to  ask  again  the  advice  of  the  Attorney  General,  as  soon  as  he 
returned  to  the  seat,  of  Government,  which  I  presumed  would  be  before 
any  great  lapse  of  time,  and,  probably,  as  soon  as  I  then  supposed  an  ar- 
rangement would  be  made  with  any  bank,  to  hold  the  money  on  as  good 
terms  as  it  wras  now  held  by  the  Bank  of  the  State  of  Ne\v  York. 

2d.  It  has  been  communicated  to  you  that  the  latter  bank  paid  sevek  per 
cent,  interest  for  the  fund,  on  the  ground  that  my  account  with  the  bank 
was  of  support;  when,  to  justify  them  in  allowing  that  rate  of  interest, 
though  without  that  amount  no  such  rate  of  interest  would  be  given. 

3d.  The  condition  of  the  money,  which  was  such  at  that  time  that  it  was 
deemed  by  me,  and  others  with  whom  I  consulted,  unwise  to  attempt  an 
arrangement  with  any  of  the  banks  for  a  change  of  the  place  of  deposite, 
lest  it  might  have  a  tendency  to  throw  a  distrust,  when  none  ought  to  have 
been  cast. 

4th.  I  did  not  feel  myself  at  liberty,  without  being  especially  directed, 
to  negotiate  with  any  bank  which  had  heretofore  held  the  public  money  ; 
and  although  I  might  have  construed  your  letter  into  an  intimation  that 
you  would  have  preferred  that  the  fund  should  have  been  deposited  in  the 
Bank  of  America,  yet  I  had  no  reason  to  satisfy  me  that  the  former,  a 
more  recent  transaction  of  that  bank  with  the  Government,  gave  any  espe- 
cial claim  to  the  confidence  of  the  Government  or  its  officers. 

5th.  But  what  has  more  than  any  thing  influenced  me  to  omit  an  an- 
swer to  your  letter,  was  the  fact  of  official  engagements  of  much  more  im- 
portance, as  I  have  had  occasion  before  to  state  to  you,  than  that  of  decid- 
ing what  disposition  should  be  made  of  the  fund  in  question,  from  the  brief 
period  of  the  absence  of  the  Attorney  General  trom  the  seat  of  Government; 
knowing,  as  I  did,  that  it  could  no  where  be  placed  to  derive  so  large  an 
income  for  it;  and  that  it  was  contrary  to  the  theory  of  the  administration 
to  imagine  it  unsafe  in  my  hands,  when  ten  times  the  amount,  was  occa- 
sionally left,  without  any  apparent  uneasiness  on  the  part  of  the  Treasury 
Department. 

6th.  In  reference  to  your  letter  of  the  13th  instant,  I  am  very  glad  to  hear 
that  you  have  again  called  the  attention  of  the  Attorney  General  to  the 


338 


Rep.  No.  669. 


question.  I  think  he  will  agree  with  me  that  the  late  act  of  Congress  does 
not  touch  the  question.  Upon  general  common  law  principles,  no  agent  is 
bound  to  pay  over  money  he  has  received  with  direclions  not  to  pay  over 
without  indemnity,  and  that  indemnity  is  not  given  by  the  law  ;  and  the 
Treasury  Department,  if  it  has  authority  to  give  that  indemnity,  has  never 
offered  it.  It  is  a  matter  in  which  you  nor  I  can  in  any  way  be  responsi- 
ble for,  if  the  whole  money  is  lost.  You  have  called  the  attention  of  Con- 
gress to  the  question,  and  it  has  failed  to  provide  for  it,  and  with  it  the  re- 
sponsibility rests. 

Respectfullv. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary,  <§•<?. 


Treasury  Department,  October  29,  1839. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  21st  instant,  respecting  the  opinion  of  the  Attor- 
ney General  in  regard  to  the  disposition  of  the  money  in  your  hands,  paid  for 
duties  under  protest  prior  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  the  3d  of  March  last, 
was  duly  received. 

Your  communication  was  referred  to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  with 
instructions  to  confer  with  the  Attorney  General,  and  report  what  form  of 
letter  or  arrangements  it  was  proper  to  furnish  for  your  security,  on  the 
part  of  the  Department. 

A  copy  of  my  letter  and  the  Solicitor's  reply  are  herewith  transmitted. 
In  accordance  with  the  recommendation  of  the  above-stated  officers,  I  here- 
by apprize  you  that,  on  your  passing  the  money  (held  by  you  for  duties 
paid  under  protest)  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  this 
Department  considers  itself  bound,  under  the  existing  laws,  as  construed 
by  the  Attorney  General,  to  refund  from  the  accruing  revenue  any  portion 
of  said  sum,  whenever  it  shall  appear,  by  final  judgment  of  a  competent 
court,  that  it  was  not  legally  requireu  to  be  paid  to  the  United  States,  and 
ought  to  be  refunded. 

You  will  be  pleased  to  furnish  a  list  of  the  sums  received  under  protest, 
with  names  of  the  individuals  who  paid  the  same,  to  serve  as  a  guide  here 
in  refunding.    The  business  can  therefore  be  now  closed  up. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY. 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  31,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  29th  instant,  in  relation  to  the  protest 
fund.  I  have  given  notice  to  the  bank  that  the  interest  on  the  fund  stops 
to-day ;  but  in  your  letter  you  omit  to  provide  for  the  cost  of  the  litigation 
in  the  suits  against  me,  which  I  will  refer  to  in  a  more  formal  letter,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  you  will  write  such  a  letttr  as  I  shall  suggest.  I  will  carry 
the  transaction  through  the  books  as  soon  as  the  officers  can  do  so,  but  we 
are  now  occupied  with  our  usual  monthly  statements,  and  we  may  not 
complete  it  this  week. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary,  fyc. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


339 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  1,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  a  brief  letter  I  had  the  honor  to  address  you  yesterday,  in 
answer  to  yours  of  the  29th  ultimo,  in  relation  to  the  protest  fund,  I  stated 
some  objections  to  the  form  of  your  letter,  as  not  covering  the  whole 
ground. 

I  have  now  pending  against  me  seventeen  suits,  for  the  recovery  of  excess 
of  duties  charged  under  the  direction  of  the  Department,  and  which  several 
sums  were  paid  under  protest.  Those  suits  I  am  to  defend,  for  the  benefit 
and  protection  of  the  Government;  and  I  am,  and  not  the  United  States, 
the  defendant  in  each  of  such  suits.  If  a  recovery  be  had  against  me,  it 
will  be  incorporated  in  the  judgment,  which  becomes,  on  its  being  docketed, 
a  lien  upon  my  individual  property,  and  upon  such  judgment  an  execu- 
tion can  be  issued,  which,  if  not  paid,  must  be  levied  out  of  my  estate.  I 
am  also  answerable  for  the  costs  and  counsel  fees  of  my  own  attorney  and 
counsellor,  who  conduct  the  litigation  on  my  part,  and  which  I  am  legally 
and  morally  bound  to  pay.  In  your  letter,  which  the  Attorney  General 
and  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  seem  to  consider  an  indemnity  to  me,  this 
matter,  which  is  by  no  means  unimportant,  is  wholly  overlooked.  I  have 
always  considered  it  an  indispensable  part  of  the  indemnity  which  I  was 
bound,  in  justice  to  myself  and  securities,  to  insist  upon  ;  and  so  much  so, 
that  on  one  occasion  I  referred  to  the  case  of  Mr.  Gelston,a  former  col- 
lector of  this  port,  as,  in  all  respects  in  point.  I  have  also  had  more  recent 
admonitions  in  this  very  question.  I  did  in  a  former  quarterly  account 
make  a  charge  of  moneys  which  I  had  actually  paid  for  trying  some  causes 
of  this  character,  and  the  Auditor  suspended  the  charge,  and  it  was  with 
some  difficulty  I  at  length  got  it  passed  in  my  accounts,  and  then  only  with 
the  notice  that,  in  similar  cases  thereafter,  the  authority  of  the  Department 
must  be  first  obtained.  This,  then,  would  extend  to  all  suits  now  pending 
against  me,  as  I  did  not  imagine  it  to  be  necessary  to  ask  authority  to  protect 
the  interest  of  the  Government. 

I  have  already  voluntarily  paid  into  the  Treasury  the  sum  of  $3,469  56 
for  interest  received  on  this  fund,  which  I  was  under  no  legal  obligations 
to  pay ;  and  I  shall  receive,  in  due  course,  another  sum  of  probably  about 
half  that  amount,  also  for  interest,  which  I  propose  to  dispose  of  in  the' 
same  manner. 

Upon  this  state  of  the  case,  why  should  I,  or  any  other  public  officer, 
who  only  acts  under  the  order  of  his  superiors,  be  compelled  to  hazard 
one  dollar  in  a  business  of  this  character  ?  I  therefore  cannot  doubt  that 
you  will  see  the  justice  and  necessity  of  enlarging  your  letter  of  the  29th 
of  October,  so  as  to  embrace  the  points  to  which  I  now  call  your  attention. 

I  will,  as  soon  as  my  clerks  can  pass  the  entries  through  the  proper 
books,  send  you  a  certificate  of  the  fact  of  the  money  having  been  trans- 
ferred to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  when  you  can,  as  no  doubt  you  will, 
address  me  an  unconditional  letter  of  indemnity,  embracing  the  points  you 
seemed  to  have  overlooked,  and  which  I  have  herein  referred  to. 

I  have  a  list  of  the  sums  received  already  copied,  and  hope  to  be  able 
to  get  through  with  the  various  entries  early  in  the  next  week ;  and  in  the 
mean  while  I  expect  to  hear  of  your  approval  of  the  view  I  now  take. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector . 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


340 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  11,  1S39. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  7th  instant,  in  relation  to  the  protest  fund. 
I  have  passed  the  entries,  a  schedule  of  which  I  now  enclose,  through  the 
proper  books  of  the  office,  and  have  paid  the  money,  including  interest 
on  five  entries  of  H.  Andrews,  (viz  :  $45,649  25,)  into  the  cashier's  office, 
and  which  will  go  regularly  through  the  accounts  to  the  credit  of  the 
Treasury.  As  soon  as  I  have  the  leisure  to  have  the  interest  account  made 
up  with  the  bank,  I  shall  collect  that  interest,  and  pass  it  to  the  credit 
of  the  United  States  on  the  books  of  this  office. 

I  also  enclose  you  a  schedule  of  vuits  pending  against  me,  in  number 
eighteen,  and  which  will  be  tried  in  the  course  of  the  next  month. 

The  suits  against  me  are  commenced  in  the  State  courts  ;  and,  as  they 
involve  the  construction  of  the  tariff  laws,  it  is  deemed  necessary  that 
they  should  be  taken  up  to  the  courts  of  the  United  States,  to  the  end  that 
we  may  have  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  case  it  may  be  deemed 
important. 

I  have  employed  B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  to  take  charge  of  the  suits;  and, 
though  they  are  against  me  individually,  it  is  only  the  interest  of  the  Gov- 
ernment that  is  involved  in  the  various  controversies  affecting  the  rate  of 
duties  we  are  to  charge  here,  as  well  as  at  other  ports;  and  the  nature  of 
the  controversy  requires  that  great  care  should  be  exercised  in  the  defence 
of  them,  as  the  result  may  materially  affect  the  revenue  of  the  Govern- 
ment as  well  as  the  just  administration  of  the  laws;  and  therefore  it  is 
that  I  have  particularly  requested  Mr.  Butler  to  give  his  best  attention  to 
the  several  cases. 

In  making  this  request  of  him,  I  took  it  for  granted  that  he  would  be 
entitled  to  a  counsel  fee  in  each  case,  many  of  which  may  take,  severally,, 
one,  two,  or  three  days  to  try ;  and  I  think  I  have  no  right  to  ask  him  to 
try  such  causes  for  the  inconsiderable  compensation  of  the  taxable  cost. 
I  therefore,  in  pursuance  of  the  rule  the  Comptroller  has  established,  ask 
permission  to  say  to  Mr.  Butler  that  he  shall  have  a  counsel  fee  in  trying 
the  causes  referred  to. 

You  will  notice  a  discrepancy  of  $3  35  between  the  amount  paid  over 
'  and  the  amount  of  last  return  of  this  fund  ;  that  is,  I  pay  over  this  sum 
more  than  it  appears  by  my  books  I  have  received,  and  the  clerks  have 
not  yet  discovered  the  error;  but  I  am  so  anxious  to  get  the  whole  affair 
off  my  hands  to-day,  I  have  directed  the  amount  to  be  forwarded  as  it  is ; 
and  if  I  do  not  hereafter  discover  the  error,  the  loss  of  the  $3  35  I  must 
bear. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department, 

November  16,  1839. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  11th  instant,  with  the  accompanying  list  of  the 
protest  fands,  and  a  schedule  of  suits  pending  against  you,  was  duly  re- 
ceived. 

In  regard  to  your  proposed  employment  of  the  U.  S.  district  attorney> 


Rep.  No.  669. 


341 


to  defend  in  the  suits  now  pending  against  you  in  the  State  courts,  I  would 
remark,  that  the  third  section  of  the  act  of  3d  of  March  last,  making  ap- 
propriations for  the  civil  and  diplomatic  expenses  of  the  Government,  pro- 
hibits any  allowance  being  made  by  the  Department  to  the  United  States 
district  attorneys  for  the  payment  of  any  extra  services,  unless  authorized 
by  law. 

It  is  probable  that  Congress  will  modify  the  provision  of  the  law  re- 
ferred to  before  the  suits  will  be  ail  disposed  of,  as  district  attorneys  have 
never  been  considered  bound,  ex  officio,  to  attend  to  business  in  the  State 
courts;  and  yet  their  services  there  may  be  more  useful  to  the  Govern- 
ment than  those  of  any  other  counsel. 

Respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  8?c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  19,  1S39. 

Sir:  I  received,  yesterday,  your  letter  of  the  16th  insiant,  in  relation 
to  the  defence  of  the  suits  brought  against  me,  individually,  by  persons 
who  paid  duties  under  protest. 

I  sent  a  copy  of  that  letter  to  B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  and  in  reply  he  wrote 
me  this  day,  a  copy  of  which  reply  I  now  hand  you. 

I  desire  to  avoid  all  difficulty  hereafter  in  the  statement  of  my  accounts,, 
and  I  therefore  desire  that  the  principle  of  every  change  I  am  to  make,  in 
cases  where  doubts  could  arise,  be  settled  as  I  go  along. 

Upon  a  liberal  construction.  I  have  already  an  authority  to  pay  all  costs 
that  I  may  be  put  to ;  but,  as  I  was  not  sure  the  Department  so  understood 
it,  I  wrote  you  the  letter  of  the  11th  instant,  referred  to  by  you  in  that  of 
the  16th  ;  and  it  seems  that  I  was  right  in  taking  the  precaution  of  asking 
your  understanding  of  the  subject. 

With  great  respect,  I  submit  that  the  section  of  the  act  of  the  3d  of 
March,  1839,  referred  to  by  you,  has  no  bearing  on  the  question.  I  em- 
ploy the  district  attorney,  not  as  district  attorney,  but  as  a  gentleman  of  the 
profession,  in  whose  skill  and  ability  I  have  the  utmost  confidence.  I  have 
a  brother  in  the  same  profession  in  this  city,  and  I  might  employ  him  as 
well  as  Mr.  Butler,  if  I  had  the  same  confidence  in  the  one  as  I  have  in 
the  other;  and  the  expenses  of  the  litigation  the  United  States  must  pay,, 
or  I  will  permit  the  suits  to  go  by  default.  It  is  unjust  that  I  should  be 
put  in  jeopardy  for  the  expense  of  the  litigation,  when  I  act  in  obedience- 
to  the  orders  of  my  superiors  ;  and  I  know  of  no  law  that  compels  the 
district  attorney,  as  such,  to  take  charge  of  the  suits.  I  recollect  an  in- 
stance, when  I  was  at  trie  bar,  where  a  distinguished  counsel  was  em- 
ployed to  assist  a  former  district  attorney  in  defending  a  cause  against  a 
former  collector,  involving  the  interest  of  the  United  States,  and  he  re- 
ceived a  fee  of  $250.  I  venture  to  say  that  no  one  would  charge  less  than 
Mr.  Butler;  and  it  is  wholly  indifferent  to  me  whether  he  or  any  one  else 
is  employed,  or  whether  any  one  is  employed  at  all,  so  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned personally.  All  I  contend  for  is,  that  the  United  States  are  to  pay 
the  expenses,  and  not  I. 

I  have  this  day  received  from  the  Bank  of  the  State  of  New  York  the 


342 


Rep.  No.  669. 


sum  of  $2,108  42,  being  the  balance  of  interest  due  on  the  protest  fund 
lately  held  by  that  institution,  and  which  I  do  not  think  I  would  be  justi- 
fied in  paying  over  to  the  United  States  until  I  receive  some  further  indem- 
nity or  instructions  in  relation  to  the  suits  referred  to. 

I  was  in  hopes  that  I  should  never  be  compelled  to  refer  to  this  unpleas- 
ant subject  of  the  protest  fund  again;  but  I  will,  if  it  be  necessary,  go  back 
to  my  former  position,  and  say  that  I  will  not  pay  over  this  interest  till  I 
am  protected  in  the  matters  referred  to. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  November  23,  1839. 

Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  19th  instant,  enclosing  a  copy  of  one  addressed 
to  you  by  B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  on  the  subject  of  the  cost  of  defending  suits 
brought  against  you,  has  been  received. 

In  answer,  I  have  to  observe,  that  you  appear  entirely  to  misapprehend 
the  views  of  the  Department  as  to  the  allowance  of  reasonable  costs  in  the 
suits  in  the  State  courts. 

The  only  difficulty  arises  in  paying  any  extra  compensation  to  the  district 
attorney  under  the  act  of  the  3d  of  March  last,  as  construed  by  the  Attorney 
General.  But  no  difficulty  exists  in  paying  a  suitable  compensation  to  any 
other  counsel,  and  and  all  other  reasonable  costs,  and  none  has  been  intend- 
ed to  be  raised. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  21,  1839. 
Sir  :  By  the  enclosed  newspaper  you  will  perceive  that  a  calumny,  yes- 
terday put  before  the  public,  and  promptly  refuted  by  me,  has  been  this 
morning  repeated,  in  a  new,  and,  if  possible,  still  more  aggravated  form, 
inasmuch  as  it  imputes  to  you  a  breach  of  official  duty  not  less  improper 
than  that  charged  upon  me.  Allow  me  to  request,  by  return  mail,  a  letter, 
which  I  may  lay  before  the  public,  distinctly  stating  whether  I  am,  or  ever 
have  been,  a  defaulter. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  December  24,  1839. 
Sir:  Yours  of  the  21st  instant  has  been  received,  in  which  you  desire 
trie  to  state  whether  you  are,  or  "ever  have  been,  a  defaulter."    In  reply, 
I  would  observe,  that  no  fact  is  known  to  me,  justifying  such  an  imputation 
against  you.    The  difference  of  opinion  which  arose  between  you  and  the 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Department,  in  respect  to  the  proper  disposal  of  a  portion  of  the  money 
paid  under  protest,  and  held  to  abide  the  result  of  suits  against  you,  may 
have  given  rise  to  some  unfavorable  rumors ;  but  those  differences  were 
determined  by  the  advice  of  the  law  officers  of  the  United  States,  and  the 
money  paid  over  in  conformity  with  their  views. 

Respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Treasury  Department,  February  7,  1840. 
Sir  :  In  reference  to  the  inquiry  submitted  in  your  communication  of  the 
4th  instant,  covering  a  letter  addressed  by  you  to  the  collector  of  New 
York,  together  with  a  copy  of  one  from  that  officer  to  yourself,  dated  the 
1st  instant,  I  have  to  observe,  that  the  Department  understands  the  ques- 
tion submitted  to  be  this  :  Whether,  in  cases  where  duties  have  been  paid 
on  a  certain  description  of  merchandise  under  protest,  made  at  the  time  by 
the  parties — which  duties  the  State  courts  have  decided  to  have  been  erro- 
neously exacted — as  well  as  in  cases  where  the  articles  are  similar  in  char- 
acter, but  in  which  no  protest  was  made  when  the  duties  were  paid,  the 
Department  would  deem  it  proper  to  direct  the  duties  in  such  cases  to  be 
refunded  ? 

In  reply,  I  would  remark,  it  is  understood  that  some  of  these  decisions 
will  be  carried  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  for  adjudication;  and  the  subject 
being,  moreover,  before  Congress,  with  the  view  of  some  declaratory  law 
being  passed,  showing  the  intention  of  that  body  in  reference  to  the  duti- 
able character  of  the  articles  of  merchandise  in  question,  as  well  as  of  others, 
it  would  seem  to  be  proper,  under  these  circumstances,  to  withhold  refund- 
ing the  duties  in  all  such  cases. 

As  at  present  advised,  even  in  cases  of  a  final  decision  by  the  United 
States  courts,  I  doubt  my  authority,  under  the  existing  laws  and  opinions 
of  these  tribunals,  to  refund  duties  not  paid  under  protest,  without  a  spe- 
cial act  of  Congress.  Nor  is  such  repayment  deemed  equitable  in  most 
cases,  as  the  duty  has  probably  been  charged  by  the  importer  in  the  price 
of  his  goods,  when  sold,  and  if  refunded  to  him  it  becomes  a  gratuity. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

James  N.  Barker,  Esq.,  Comptroller. 


CORRESPONDENCE  ON  DIFFERENT  SUBJECTS  REFERRED  TO  IN  THE  REPORT. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  4,  1839. 
Sir  ;  We  have  been  so  much  pressed  in  business  in  the  last  few  days,, 
and  I  am  so  much  occupied  in  getting  the  accounts  closed  of  the  3d  quar- 
ter, that  1  have  not  had  time  to  write  the  letter  I  promised  a  few  days 
since.  I  would  write,  but  I  took  from  the  last  evening's  papers  the  annexed 
notice : 


344  Kep.  No.  669. 

"  Important  to  importers. 

"We  understand  that,  from  and  after  the  29th  day  of  December  last, 
manufactures  of  silk,  or  of  which  silk  shall  be  the  component  material  of 
chief  value,  coming  from  this  side  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  except  sew- 
ing silk,  are  and  will  be  admitted  free  of  duty.  Silk  gloves,  silk  stockings, 
silk  scarfs,  silk  shawls,  silk  any  thing  but  sewing  silk,  embroidered  or  not 
•embroidered,  knotted  or  not  knotted,  be  they  silk  hosiery,  silk  millinery, 
silk  mitts,  or  silk  gloves,  are  and  will  be,  at  the  Boston  custom-house,  ad- 
mitted free  of  duty.  Such  is  the  interpretation  of  the  law  given  to  the  col- 
lector by  Judge  Story. 

"  The  decision  of  Judge  Story,  last  Saturday,  places  the  office  here,  in  all 
essential  matters,  just  where  it  was  before  the  circulars  issued  by  the  Comp- 
troller last  August. — Boston  Post" 

It  is  very  apparent  we  cannot  get  on  and  execute  the  laws  as  we  under- 
stand them,  and  as  I  believe  Congress  intended  we  should  understand 
them,  short  of  an  appeal  to  Congress  to  settle  the  litigated  question.  If 
Congress  does  not  interfere,  one-half  the  duties  will  be  paid  under  protest ; 
all  which  involves  the  collectors  in  interminable  trouble.  As  the  law  now  is, 
no  collector  can  get  on  with  the  public  business  in  a  manner  satisfactory  to 
himself,  the  public,  or  the  Government.  It  is  exceedingly  unpleasant  to 
me  to  stand  in  this  attitude. 

I  am  unwilling  to  pay  over  the  money  received  by  me  under  protest  to 
the  United  States,  and  trust  to  the  justice  of  the  Government  for  my  pro- 
tection hereafter.  I  understand  the  Government  to  be  the  people,  acting 
through  their  representatives ;  and  it  is  but  recently  that  a  suit  has  been 
ordered  by  the  United  States,  against  the  representatives  of  a  former  collect- 
or of  this  district,  one  object  of  which  is  to  compel  that  collector  to  lose 
$15,000,  money  actually  paid  by  him  for  witnesses'  fees  in  causes  of  the 
United  States.  When  such  an  outrage  upon  the  rights  of  an  individual  is 
sanctioned  by  "the  Government God  forbid  that  I  or  my  representatives 
should  ever  be  compelled  to  rely  upon  "the  justice  of  that  Government" 
for  protection  in  the  discharge  of  my  official  duties. 

This  is  one  view  of  the  case ;  but  another  is,  in  my  judgment,  almost  as 
bad ;  which  is,  that  there  are  merchants  uncharitable  enough  to  believe  I 
put  the  construction  upon  the  tariff,  that  I  am  directed  to  do,  to  compel 
them  to  protest,  that  I  may  hold  the  money. 

It  is  very  desirable  that  Congress  should  interfere  in  this  matter,  as  well 
for  their  own  interests  as  for  the  just  protection  due  to  a  public  officer. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  February  2,  1839. 
Sir:  I  have  to  request  that  you  will  deposite  the  sum  of  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars  in  the  Bank  of  America,  at  New  York,  to  the  special 
credit  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  Statts,  and  transmit  the  certificate  of 
deposite  to  this  Department. 

It  is  done  in  order  to  redeem  Treasury  notes. 
I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY,  Secretary  ,  fyc. 

J.  IioYT,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


345 


Custom  House,  New  York,  February  5,  1839. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  2d  instant  did  not  reach  me  till  after  business 
hours  of  yesterday.  By  this  letter  you  "  request  me  to  deposite  the  sum 
of  $200,000  in  the  Bank  of  America,  to  the  special  credit  of  the  Treas- 
urer of  the  United  States."  You  omit  to  state  to  me  out  of  what  fund 
this  deposite  is  to  be  made.  By  previous  instructions,  I  was  directed  to 
transfer,  on  Saturday  of  each  week,  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer, 
all  the  moneys  in  my  hands,  to  be  applied  to  the  drafts  of  that  office.  I 
have  continued  to  do  so  from  the  receipt  of  those  instructions.  I  accord- 
ingly transferred,  on  Saturday  last,  $130,000,  which,  by  my  weekly  re- 
turns transmitted  yesterday,  you  will  perceive,  left  in  my  hands  the  sum 
of  $8,291  85  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  to  be  accounted  for  in  the 
next  returns,  part  of  which  had  been  actually  disbursed  for  the  benefit  of 
the  United  States,  and  charged  in  my  cash  book  to  suspense  account,  the 
regular  vouchers  for  the  expenditure  not  having  been  received. 

You  may  have  intended  this  deposite  of  $200,000  to  be  applied  to  the 
money  received  by  me  under  protest,  and  for  deposites  for  unascertained, 
duties  prior  to  1st  January  last.  If  that  be  your  intention,  1  have  to  ob- 
serve— 

1.  It  will  appear,  by  the  weekly  returns  transmitted  yester- 
day, that  the  fund  under  protest  amounted  to     -  •    $124,443  95 

2.  That  the  deposite  by  the  same  return  amounted  to  the 

sum  of    -  -  -  -  -  -  -        54,906  40 


Making,  together,  the  sum  of        -  179,350  35" 

3.  My  nett  receipts  yesterday  were  -      $23,013  94 

4.  Balance  on  hand  yesterday       -  -  S,296  85 

  31,310  79 


210,661  14 


The  sum  of  $31,310  79  is  the  only  sum  in  my  hands  to  the  credit,  of 
the  United  States  for  the  general  balance  of  receipts  for  the  customs.  But 
in  relation  to  the  first  two  items,  amounting  to  $179,350  35,  1  have  to  say — 

1.  Concerning  the  money  received  under  protest,  I  wrote  you,  on  the 
19th  of  October  last,  that  I  had  made  an  arrangement  with  the  Bank  of 
the  State  of  New  York,  (in  which  bank  I  kept  an  account,)  to  receive  7 
per  cent,  interest  on  that  fund.  I  sent  you  a  copy  of  my  correspondence 
with  that  bank,  as  evidence  of  the  agreement ;  which  you  have  not,  as  I 
believe,  dissented  from,  except  by  inference,  from  the  fact  that  you  for- 
warded me  a  copy  of  an  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United 
States,  in  a  communication  under  date  of  December  22d,  which  attempted 
to  show  that  I  was  bound  to  pay  over  that  fund  to  the  credit  of  the  United 
States.  On  the  receipt  of  which  opinion,  I  availed  myself  of  the  first 
leisure  moment  (on  the  4th  of  January)  to  dissent  from  it,  and  gave  you 
to  understand  that  I  would  not  consent,  under  any  circumstances,  to  be 
bound  by  it,  for  the  reason  that  the  Supreme  Court  had  decided  that  I  was 
not  bound  to  pay  over  money  under  such  circumstances.  Subsequent  to 
this,  I  noticed  an  article  in  the  Globe  of  January  23d,  taking  the  same 
ground  that  I  took,  in  an  essay  in  vindication  of  the  Department  for  neg- 
lecting to  call  on  Mr.  Swartwout  to  pay.  over  the  money  which  he  had  re- 


346 


Eep.  No.  669. 


ceived  under  protest,  and  which  article  alluded  to  the  decision  of  the  Su- 
preme Court  of  the  United  States,  to  which  I  also  referred. 

2.  I  wrote  to  the  Comptroller  on  the  first  instant,  in  answer  to  his  in- 
structions under  date  of  the  29th  of  January,  that  I  peremptorily  refused 
to  pay  over  the  money,  for  the  reasons  assigned  in  my  previous  commu- 
nications to  the  Department. 

3.  Under  this  state  of  things,  and  especially  as  the  United  States  was 
deriving  on  the  fund  a  larger  interest  than  it  was  paying  for  the  money  it 
borrowed  on  Treasury  notes,  and,  in  my  judgment,  was  securely  placed, 
beyond  a  possibility  of  doubt,  I  did  not  think  the  Department  would  draw 
for  it,  though  I  had  frequently  written  that  it  might,  provided  it  was  done 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  afford  me  protection. 

4.  In  regard  to  the  deposite  for  unascertained  duties,  although  I  have, 
since  the  first  of  January,  passed  the  money  immediately  to  the  credit  of 
the  United  States,  yet  I  have  serious  doubts  whether  I  ought  to  do  so;  and 
I  have  serious  doubts,  also,  whether  I  will  continue  to  do  so  after  the  pres- 
ent quarter,  unless  Congress  legislate  upon  the  subject.  Recent  investiga- 
tions and  developments  admonish  me  of  the  importance  of  assuming  no 
more  responsibilities  than  are  thrown  upon  me  by  positive  enactments  of 
law.  The  receipt  I  give  for  deposites  for  unascertained  duties  makes  me 
personally  responsible  for  the  difference  between  the  duties  actually  accru- 
ing and  the  sum  deposited,  and  the  whole  sum  deposited  I  immediately 
pass  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States,  without  any  possible  guarantee  that 
the  United  States  will  refund  the  difference  in  discharge  of  my  personal 
liability. 

1  go  into  the  discussion  now  for  the  purpose  of  suggesting  the  expedi- 
ency of  your  asking  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  to  embrace  this 
question  as  a  kindred  one  to  the  protest  subject,  and  that  a  section  should 
be  introduced  to  obviate  difficulty  on  this  as  well  as  the  protest  question. 

I  have  given  you  now  the  substance  of  the  pecuniary  condition  of  my 
affairs.  I  have  deposited  the  $200,000,  as  you  request.  If  the  Treasurer 
draws  for  all  that  stands  to  his  credit,  I  may  be  compelled  to  annul  the 
agreement  with  the  State  Bank,  without  your  direct  authority,  uniess  you 
intended  to  anticipate  the  receipts  of  all  this  week,  the  probable  amount 
of  which  I  have  not  had  the  leisure  to  ascertain  from  investigation.  Our 
cash  duties  yesterday  were  short  of  $10,000,  which  is  a  falling  off.  We 
have  been  somewhat  busy  since  the  committee  have  been  here,  as  you 
may  well  imagine,  and  it  has  been  with  difficulty  I  have  been  able  to  get 
off  my  ordinary  returns.  The  auditor  has  been  before  it  most  of  the 
time  for  the  last  ten  days. 

In  your  future  directions  for  the  deposite  of  money,  I  would  be  glad  of  a 
designation  of  the  fund  from  which  the  deposite  is  to  be  made. 

I  desire  only  to  have  matters  of  this  kind  distinctly  understood.  I  en- 
deavor to  give  you  from  time  to  time  such  minute  details  of  our  business 
at  this  port  as  to  keep  you  well  informed  on  the  subject  ;  and  I  do  not  fail 
to  object  in  time  to  any  proposed  arrangement  which  strikes  me  to  be  ob- 
jectionable, and  to  this  end  I  have  made  this  communication. 

I  have  apprized  the  Treasurer  of  the  deposite,  and  sent  him  duplicate 
receipts. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


347 


Treasury  Department,  February  7,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  5th  instant,  I  would  state  that  the 
.deposite  requested  to  be  made  in  mine  of  the  2d  instant  was  expected  to 
be  made  from  the  sum  returned  as  held  by  you  to  the  credit  of  the  Treas- 
urer. 

The  same  will  be  expected  in  like  cases  hereafter,  unless  special  direc- 
tions of  a  different  kind  are  given. 

In  regard  to  the  subject  of  duties  not  ascertained  I  supposed  the  difficul- 
ty all  settled,  and  heisce  the  bill  reported  by  the  committee  extends  only  to 
duties  paid  under  protest. 

I  trust  you  will  continue  to  deposite  the  duties  not  ascertained,  as  no 
difficulty  can  arise  from  doing  it. 

On  the  subject  of  the  money  held  under  protest,  I  have  made  a  new 
proposal,  which,  before  this,  has  doubtless  reached  you,  that  will  cure  all 
difficulty,  and  render  all  parties  secure  until  Congress  legislates. 

I  regret  that  so  numerous  and  great  labor  and  responsibilities  are  de- 
volved on  us  both  at  this  crisis ;  but  hope  that,  by  perseverance  and  an 
accommodating  disposition,  we  shall  both  overcome  them. 
I  am,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

LEVI  WOODBURY. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  fyc. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  11,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  not  till  this  moment  read  your  letter  of  the  7th  instant,  in 
relation  to  the  funds  out  of  which  we  are  to  deposite  to  the  credit  of  the 
Treasurer  in  the  Bank  of  America. 

On  Saturday,  for  instance,  I  transferred -all  the  money  we  had  to  the 
separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  and  this  morning  I  deposited  $140,000  to 
Ills  credit  in  the  Bank  of  America.  It  confuses  the  cash  book  in  the  cash- 
ier's office.  Would  it  not,  therefore,  be  better  for  the  Treasurer  to  draw  in 
favor  of  the  Bank  of  America  ?  and  then  it  goes  regularly  through  my 
books,  and  preserves  the  harmony  of  my  accounts.  I  suggest  this  for  con- 
sideration. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

•  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  12,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  7th  instant,  in  relation  to  the  money 
under  protest,  and  for  unascertained  duties,  I  cannot  but  indulge  the  hope 
that  Congress  will  do  something,  before  it  adjourns,  on  this  subject ;  if  it 
does  not,  I  will  suggest  some  mode  of  meeting  the  case.  I  was  assured 
by  one  of  the  committee,  the  other  day,  that  a  bill  should  pass  on  the 
protest  subject,  before  the  adjournment.  As  there  is  left  now  but  about 
18  working  days,  I  suggest  that  we  should  leave  it  as  it  is,  and  see  the 
result.  In  the  mean  time,  let  all  be  done  that  can  be  to  get  the  neces- 
sary legislation.  I  will,  if  I  get  the  leisure,  draw  a  short  bill,  distinct 
11* 


348  Rep.  No.  669. 

from  any  other  proposition,  and  send  it  to  some  gentleman  to  introduce 
in  one  or  the  other  House.  It  subjects  me  not  only  to  immense  addi- 
tional labor,  but  to  all  sorts  of  petty  scandal  which  the  malignant  and 
unprincipled  can  invent. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  February  14,  1839. 
Sir:  With  reference  to  the  suggestions  made  in  your  letter  of  the  12th 
instant,  in  relation  to  the  "  money  under  protest,"  and  for  duties  not  as- 
certained, I  have  only  to  remark  that  it  is  hoped  you  will  proceed  to  have 
the  bank  make  the  arrangement  proposed  in  mine  of  the  7th  instant, 
and  forward  it  here  when  completed,  as  it  will  prove  safe  to  all  con- 
cerned, and  as  the  probability  of  speedy  legislation  by  Congress  on  this 
subject  seems  diminishing. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  $c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  18,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  had  an  interview  with  the  president  of  the  State  Bank, 
in  relation  to  your  communication  of  the  4th  instant,  concerning  the  money 
deposited  under  protest.  Mr.  Lawrence  stated  that  a  plan  could  be  hit 
upon  to  satisfy  all  parties,  and  that  he  would  give  his  attention  to  the 
subject;  but  he  suggested  (as  I  did  to  you  the  other  day)  that  it  might  be 
well  to  wait  to  see  if  Congress  did  not  legislate  upon  the  subject  previ- 
ous to  its  adjournment. 

I  file  with  the  bank  a  copy  of  the  return  I  make  to  you  each  Mon- 
day, and  upon  that  return  the  interest  account  is  to  be  made  up,  which 
is  in  pursuance  of  my  original  contract  of  the  19th  October.  No  inter- 
est has  as  yet  been  made  up.  I  intended  to  have  had  it  made  up  quarter- 
ly, but  the  hurry  of  business  was  so  great  at  the  time  that  it  escaped  my 
attention  ;  and  since  which,  I  have  been  so  strongly  in  the  faith  that  Con- 
gress would  interfere,  that  I  have  permitted  it  to  run  on. 

As  soon  as  you  are  through  the  pressing  business  incident  to  the  close 
©fa  session  of  Congress,  I  will  address  you  at  length  on  the  subject. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  February  19,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  reference  to  the  subject  of  your  letter  of  the  18th  instant,  I  would 
observe  that  the  money  held  by  you  to  meet  the  drafts  of  the  Treasurer  can- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


349 


not  be  paid  out  on  any  drafts  but  his  ;  but  it  can  be  deposited,  or  any  part 
of  it,  in  any  place  directed  by  the  head  of  the  Department,  and  the  collector 
is  then  discharged  for  the  amount  so  deposited. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Treasury  Department,  February  20,  1839. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  ISth  instant,  respecting  your  interview  with  Mr. 
Lawrence,  president  of  the  State  Bank,  has  been  received,  and,  in  reply,  I 
have  to  express  the  hope  that  I  may  be  furnished  with  that  gentleman's  re- 
ply to  the  proposition  in  regard  to  the  proposed  deposite  of  "protested 
funds,"  at  an  early  day  as  may  be  found  convenient. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector.  S?c. 


[Custom-House,  New  York,  March  25,  1S39. 

Sir  :  I  received,  on  the  22d  instant,  a  circular  from  the  Comptroller,  un- 
der date  of  1 6th  instant,  in  relation  to  the  salaries  of  the  clerks  and  subor- 
dinate officers  connected  with  the  custom-house. 

I  feel  very  unwilling  to  refer  to  this  subject,  and  I  would  not,  if  I  did  not 
feel  called  upon  by  a  sense  of  justice.  I  do  it  the  more  reluctantly  now, 
from  the  necessity  I  am  under  of  reporting  to  you  that  I  was  compelled  to 
dismiss,  on  Friday  last,  two  of  the  persons  that  have  been  for  a  long  time 
in  the  cashier's  office.    I  discovered  two  causes  of  complaint  against  them  : 

1.  They  had  been  in  the  habit,  for  the  last  two  months,  of  permitting  one 
of  the  largest  woollen  importers  to  pay  his  cash  duties,  without  charging 
interest  from  the  time  of  the  arrival  of  the  vessel. 

2.  They  were  in  the  habit  of  receipting  for  discounts,  on  payment  of  du- 
ties, in  the  name  of  importers,  without  authority ;  and  they  gave  me  no  evi- 
dence that  the  money  had  actually  been  paid  to  the  importers,  while  it  was 
deducted  from  the  amount  of  duties  paid. 

The  sums  for  which  such  vouchers  had  been  given  were  small,  and,  from 
an  examination  I  have  made,  it  appears  the  gross  sum  amounts  to  $446  87, 
since  the  29th  March,  183S,  the  day  I  came  into  office. 

The  amount  of  interest  due  from  the  importer  alluded  to  I  have  ordered 
to  be  made  up,  and  will  amount  to  about  $300,  and  which  I  shall  endeavor 
to  collect;  and  I  shall  also  see  that  the  merchants  get  the  sums  they  were  re- 
spectively entitled  to  for  the  discounts  alluded  to.  It  is  almost  incredible 
that  the  practice  alluded  to  had  not  been  discovered  sooner.  It  had  its  ori- 
gin, as  I  understand,  from  the  circumstance  that  merchants  would  some- 
times leave  the  cashier's  office,  and  forget  to  sign  the  voucher  for  the  dis- 
count, when  the  clerks,  knowing  the  money  had  been  paid,  would  sign  the 
voucher  ;  and,  from  this  small  beginning,  a  practice  so  dangerous  and  rep- 


350 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Tehensible  had  crept  in.  I  have  now  disposed  of  all  the  old  regime  that 
*was  attached  to  the  cashier's  office,  and,  as  it  was  said  by  a  distinguished 
gentleman  on  a  former  occasion,  "  I  think  I  breathe  freer  now." 

But,  to  go  back  to  compensation,  with  which  I  commenced  this  letter.  I 
beg  to  say  that  there  are  two  individuals  in  the  department  that  are  not 
paid  in  proportion  to  the  responsibility  and  labor.  1  mean  the  storekeeper 
of  the  port  and  the  storekeeper  of  the  appraisers'  stores.  The  latter  is  at  the 
store  from  sunrise  to  sundown,  and  I  look  to  him  as  the  responsible  person; 
for  all  the  goods  received  and  delivered  at  those  stores.  The  responsibility, 
you  will  perceive,  is  very  great,  and  his  pay  is  but  that  of  inspector.  He 
has  a  large  family,  is  a  most  estimable  man  of  business,  of  education,  and  in- 
tegrity, and  it  is  due  to  such  an  individual,  for  the  services  he  renders,  that 
he  should  have  a  compensation  somewhat  adequate  to  them.  He  cannot 
remain,  as  he  tells  me,  unless  his  pay  is  increased,  for  the  plain  reason  that 
he  cannot  support  his  family.  Most  that  I  have  said  in  relation  to  Mr. 
"Wasson,  the  storekeeper  of  the  appraisers'  stores,  will  apply  to  Mr.  Wet- 
more,  the  storekeeper  of  the  port.  The  family  of  the  latter  is  not  as  large 
or  expensive  as  the  former. 

Inasmuch  as  the  law  does  not  allow  an  inspector  to  receive  any  com- 
pensation but  inspector's  pay,  I  know  of  no  way  of  increasing  their  com- 
pensation but  by  making  them  deputies.  Notwithstanding  my  entire  con- 
fidence in  the  integrity  of  these  gentlemen,  yet  I  do  [not]  hesitate  to  say  that 
[if]  I  knew  they  had  a  compensation  from  the  United  States  that  would  en- 
able them  to  live,  I  should  feel  there  was  a  better  chance  of  the  public  busi- 
ness being  rightly  done.  I  think  the  true  interests  of  Government  would 
he  consulted  by  such  a  course. 

In  relation  to  one  other  officer,  I  have  to  say  that  I  prevailed  on  Mr.. 
X-ewis  M.  Thurston,  my  brother-in-law,  to  come  into  the  office  on  the  16th 
April  last,  when  1  discovered  the  task  I  had  to  go  through  with,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  necessary  references  that  were  required,  at  a  salary  of  $1,000, 
to  look  after  the  general  affairs  of  the  office,  and  to  keep  a  separate  set  of 
books,  by  way  of  "  trial  balances,"  on  the  general  accounts  of  the  office ;. 
and  he  has  accordingly  ever  since  tested  the  weekly  returns,  before  I  sign 
them.  He  has  kept  the  protest  account,  the  bank  accounts,  &c.  He  came 
into  the  office,  not  from  necessity  or  from  choice,  but  to  oblige  me.  He 
was  about  to  leave  me  on  the  1st  January,  to  go  into  the  country,  but  he 
had  made  himself  so  useful  that  I  was  unwilling  to  part  with  him,  and  I 
then  told  him,  if  Congress  adjourns  without  making  any  alteration  in  the 
system  of  receiving  and  disbursing  the  public  money,  I  would  pay  him  at 
the  rate  of  #1,500  if  he  would  remain  ;  and,  if  the  United  States  would  not 
allow  it,  I  would  pay  him  myself,  rather  than  he  should  leave  me.  He 
consented  to  remain,  and  is  still  with  me,  and  I  shall  comply  with  my 
promise  to  him ;  and  the  question  is,  whether  I  do  it  at  private  or  public 
expense. 

The  expense  of  the  cashier's  room,  as  it  now  stands,  is  thus  : 
Mr.  Waters,  the  cashier  ------  $3,000 

Mr.  Bleecker,  a  former  deputy,  and  still  a  deputy  -  -  1,500 

Mr.  Mitchell,  removed  from  the  debenture  desk  last  week         -  1,000 
-Mr.  Tiffany,  a  new  man,  whom  I  brought  in  to  educate  as  a  com- 
petent person  to  keep  the  cash  book,  in  case  of  the  sickness  or 
absence  of  Mr.  Waters  -         -----  1,250 

6,750 


Rep.  No.  669. 


351 


*  This  is  larger  than  it  has  ever  been  before  ;  but  I  cannot  get  along  with 
a  less  sum.  I  will  not  consent  to  pay  in  that  department  a  sum  less  than 
is  adequate  to  the  support  of  the  individual  I  put  in  that  responsible  place. 

I  submit  these  considerations  to  you,  with  the  hope  that  you  will  agree 
in  the  propriety  of  my  suggestions. 

The  gloom  in  the  money  market  continues  to  increase.  Some  shipments 
of  specie  in  the  packets  that  cleared  on  Saturday  has  added  to  the  panic. 

The  apprehension  of  the  unsound  condition  of  the  Southwestern  banks, 
and  the  calls  for  specie  from  that  quarter,  have  contributed  to  this  result.  It 
is  also  apprehended  that  the  Maine  affair  willcreate  such  a  sensation  in  Eng- 
land that  American  credits  will  be  cut  off,  and  stocks  returned  to  large 
amounts,  which  will  bring  a  heavy  pressure  upon  us  here,  and  especially  so 
if  the  holders  of  cotton  do  not  sell.  There  is  a  large  amount  of  cotton; 
in  this  city,  which  has  been  drawn  for,  and  not  yet  sent  forward,  so  that 
bills  cn  England  can  be  predicated  upon  it,  which  necessarily  increases  the 
demand  for  money.  The  importations  are  heavy  and  the  sales  light,  which 
also  gives  cause  for  apprehensions.  All  which  has  induced  me  to  be  more 
particular  in  the  names  I  take  on  bonds.  Some  of  our  people  (but  I  think, 
they  are  wrong)  go  so  far  as  to  whisper  that  we  shall  have  another  sus- 
pension of  specie  payments.  I  think  not ;  but,  to  allay  the  great  apprehen- 
tions  that  prevail  on  the  subject  of  our  relations  with  Great  Britain,  which 
is  the  great  cause  of  the  depression  in  the  minds  of  our  business  men,  I  would 
suggest,  that  if  the  Government  have  any  information  on  that  subject  of  a. 
favorable  nature,  not  known  to  the  public,  that  it  cause  an  article  to  be 
written  for  the  Globe,  (not  official,)  ihat  would  be  calculated  to  have  the 
desired  effect.  It  might  be  in  the  shape  of  some  reason  that  influences  the 
President  in  not  sending,  at  once,  a  special  minister.  An  explanation 
on  the  subject  would  probably  do  good.  I  throw  this  out  for  your  con- 
sideration ;  for  I  understand  there  is  a  great  panic  to-day  in  Wall  street, 
though  I  have  not  been  there  to  inquire. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  March  26,  1S39. 

Sir  :  I  have  this  moment  received  the  enclosed  letter  from  Mr.  Fleming, 
the  auditor,  which  I  beg  you  to  consider. 

I  have  the  most  perfect  confidence  in  the  integrity  of  this  gentleman,  and 
his  ability  for  the  station  he  now  holds  cannot  be  questioned.  I  would  not 
be  willing  to  trust  myself  in  this  office  without  him.  I  am  perfectly  certain 
that  his  accounts  are  kept  right,  and  his  knowledge  of  the  details  is  such, 
that  his  services  are  indispensable  to  the  safety  of  the  collector.  I  am  now* 
satisfied  with  the  internal  regulations  of  the  office. 

I  cannot  retain  the  cashier  short  of  his  present  compensation ;  that  Mr. 
Fleming  is  entitled  to  be  put  on  a  par  with  him,  I  think  must  be  admitted. 
I  have  had  no  conversation  with  him  on  the  subject,  now  or  at  any  other 
time  ;  but  I  was  not  surprised  at  receiving  the  letter.  I  am  perfectly  satis- 
fied that  it  is  a  miserable  economy  in  the  Government,  at  a  point  like  this, 
when  so  much  can  be  saved  by  diligence  and  accuracy,  to  stint  the  peronss 


352 


Eep.  No.  669. 


having  charge  of  the  business  too  much  in  salary.  The  expenses  of  living 
in  this  city  are  so  enormous,  men  cannot  live  at  the  compensation  allowed. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  March  28,  1839. 

Sir  :  Your  letters  of  the  25th  and  26th  instant  have  been  received. 

In  reference  to  your  suggestion,  that  the  two  storekeepers  at  your  port 
should  be  constituted  deputy  collectors,  with  the  view  of  augmenting  their 
compensation,  so  as  to  make  the  same  an  adequate  remuneration  for  their 
services,  I  would  remark,  that  I  should  be  pleased  to  sanction  the  arrange- 
ment if  there  were  any  means  at  my  disposal  by  which  they  could  be  paid  ; 
but  as  this  can  only  be  done,  under  the  existing  laws,  out  of  the  emolu- 
ments of  the  collector's  office,  which,  judging  from  past  years,  will  not  prove 
sufficient,  I  cannot  see  how  the  arrangement  can  be  carried  into  effect,  un- 
less the  present  number  of  your  clerks  be  diminished,  so  as  to  leave  your 
addition  to  such  as  reward. 

The  same  difficulties  arise  in  regard  to  the  increase  of  the  pay  of  the  au- 
ditor, as  well  as  Mr.  Thurston,  the  additional  clerk  spoken  of  in  your  first- 
mentioned  letter. 

The  Department  considers  that  it  possesses  power,  under  the  2d  section, 
of  the  act  of  the  2d  March,  1799,  to  authorize  the  payment,  to  the  extent 
of  two  dollars  per  day,  (whilst  actually  employed,)  of  persons  necessarily 
employed  by  collectors  in  aid  of  the  revenue,  other  than  inspectors. 

That  is  the  limit  of  its  present  authority.  All  other  pay  must  come  from, 
fees,  emoluments,  or  special  laws. 

If  you  can  suggest  any  legal  mode  of  overcoming  the  difficulties  before 
stated,  so  as  to  accomplish  the  objects  you  desire,  I  should  be  pleased  if  yon 
"will  point  it  out,  as  the  Department  is  anxious  to  afford  all  needful  facilities 
for  a  prompt  and  faithful  discharge  of  the  important  public  business  at  your 
port  which  it  is  in  its  power  to  render. 

1  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  1,  1839. 

Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  29th  ultimo,  in  relation  to  the  salaries  of 
certain  officers  in  this  department. 

The  fees  of  office  for  the  last  month  are  about  $1,000  more  than  they 
generally  have  been  since  I  have  been  in  office,  and  over  $500  more  than 
they  were  in  the  month  of  March  ;  and  therefore  it  is  that  I  hope  we  shall 
not  be  compelled  to  make  so  large  a  call  upon  the  revenue  proper  as  was 
contemplated,  for  the  compensation  to  clerks,  &c.  I  am  exceedingly  anx- 
ious that  Mr.  Wasson  and  Mr.  Wetmore  should  be  compensated  somewhat 
in  proportion  to  their  services  and  responsibilities   but  I  am  also  desirous 


Rep.  No.  669. 


353 


not  to  swell  up  the  deficiency  in  the  emolument  account,  if  it  can  be  avoid- 
ed; and  therefore  I  have  one  more  suggestion  to  make,  which  is,  that  both, 
of  those  gentlemen  belong  properly,  or  their  business  relates  more  espe- 
cially, to  the  appraisers'  department,  the  whole  expense  of  which  is  charge- 
able to  the  revenue.  The  salaries  for  the  subordinates  in  that  department 
have  heretofore  been  regulated  by  the  nature  and  importance  of  the  ser- 
vices performed.  This  was  the  rule  as  long  back  as  the  time  of  Collector 
Thompson.  I  think  you  would  do  but  an  act  of  justice  to  individuals,  as 
•well  as  to  promote  the  interests  of  the  public  service,  if  you  were  to  con- 
sider the  gentlemen  named  as  chief  clerks  in  the  appraisers'  department, 
with  a  salary  of  $1,500,  and  assign  them  to  the  duties  they  now  perform. 

Mr.  Wasson  formerly  performed  the  duties,  under  Mr.  Secretary  Ingham, 
as  an  out-door  measurer,  and  he  has  rendered  me  essential  services  on  va- 
rious occasions,  as  a  judge  of  goods,  and  in  watching  the  business  of  sus- 
pected persons.  I  am  grieved  that  a  gentleman  of  his  high  character  and 
sterling  integrity  should  be  compelled  to  toil  so  incessantly  for  a  compensa- 
tion so  wholly  inadequate  as  that  which  he  has  heretofore  received. 

Mr.  Wetmore  is  equally  meritorious,  but  in  a  different  line. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  May  3,  1839. 

Sir  :  In  regard  to  the  proposition  made  in  your  letter  of  the  1st  instant, 
to  constitute  Messrs.  Wasson  and  Wetmore  clerks  in  the  appraisers'  office, 
whose  present  duties  you  consider  as  properly  belonging  to  that  branch  of 
the  public  service,  I  would  observe,  that  the  power  to  appoint  clerks  in 
that  office  is  by  the  6th  section  of  the  act  of  the  28th  of  May,  1830,  con- 
ferred on  the  principal  appraisers,  and  not  on  me  or  the  collector. 

If,  therefore,  the  appraisers  consider  their  services  needed  in  their  office, 
and  will  recommend  their  employment,  and  at  the  same  time  suggest  the 
rate  of  compensation  proposed  to  allow  them,  I  shall  be  happy  to  give  the 
subject  due  consideration,  as  the  compensation  is  to  be  fixed  here. 

1  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  S,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  you  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Price,  the  district 
attorney,  on  the  question  of  the  appointment  of  "  markers"  or  "deputy  in- 
spectors'* of  this  port.  The  hasty  view  I  gave  you  yesterday,  in  justifica- 
tion of  the  course  I  had  taken,  did  not  permit  me  to  advert  critically  to  the 
act  of  March  3,  1791,  for  the  reason,  among  other  things,  that  this  act,  in 
all  essential  particulars,  was  repealed  by  the  act  of  1799  ;  but  it  may  have 
been  proper  to  have  adverted  to  it,  for  the  purpose  of  arriving  at  the  origin 
of  the  idea  that  such  an  office  existed  under  the  duty  acts  as  "  deputy 


354 


Sep.  No.  669. 


inspector"  of  the  revenue.  By  the  last  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  all 
other  acts  relating  to  the  subject,  so  far  as  the  present  question  is  concern- 
ed, are  repealed,  "  except  as  to  the  continuance  of  the  officers  appointed  in 
pursuance  of  the  said  act,"  &c. 

It  must  be  conceded  that  the  act  of  1799  remodelled  the  whole  subject, 
and  that  the  public  interest  was  placed  upon  the  footing  which  was  re- 
quired by  the  lapse  of  eight  years  of  experience  and  the  rapid  progress  of 
improvement  in  trade  and  business  of  the  country,  and  the  sources  from 
which  a  revenue  was  to  be  derived  for  the  support  of  the  Government ; 
and  that  nothing  operative  was  intended  to  be  left  of  the  old  act,  but  such, 
portion  of  the  powers  conferred  upon  the  officers  then  in  being  as  was 
deemed  necessary  to  execute  the  provisions  contained  in  the  new  one. 

That  this  is  so  is  apparent  from  the  fact  that  the  provision  of  the  act 
of  1791  is  confined  exclusively  to  "distilled  spirits,"  while  the  act  of  1799 
embraces  that  matter  as  is  extended,  su  far  as  the  office  of  deputy  inspector 
is  concerned,  to  wines  and  teas  also  ;  and  the  same  services  necessary  to 
be  performed  as  to  the  one  must  be  performed  as  to  the  other  by  the  same 
officer,  though  it  nowhere  expressly  appears  that  an  inspector  has  the 
power  to  appoint  a  deputy,  except  as  will  hereafter  be  alluded  to. 

But  to  revert  to  the  act  of  1791,  for  the  powers  claimed  by  the  sur- 
veyor of  this  port :  let  us  see  what  they  are,  as  gathered  from  the  provis- 
ions of  that  act,  without  reference  to  further  legislation. 

The  4th  section  makes  the  following  provisions  as  to  the  creation  of 
officers  to  execute  the  powers  concerning  "the  duties  laid  upon  distilled 
spirits,"  &c,  "and  also  upon  spirits  distilled  within  the  United  States 

1.  For  the  collection  of  duties,  it  divides  the  United  States  into  14  dis- 
tricts, subject  to  alteration  by  the  President. 

2.  The  districts  can  be  subdivided  by  the  President  into  surveys  of  in- 
spection, with  power  to  alter  the  same. 

3.  The  President  and  Senate  have  power  to  appoint  a  supervisor  to  each 
district,  and  as  many  inspectors  to  each  survey  as  he  shall  judge  necessary, 
placing  the  inspectors  under  the  direction  of  the  supervisor. 

4.  Making  it  lawful  for  the  President  and  Senate  to  appoint  such  and 
so  many  officers  of  the  custoins  to  be  inspectors  in  any  survey  of  inspec- 
tion as  he  shall  deem  advisable  to  employ  in  the  execution  of  the  act. 

5.  That  when,  in  the  judgment  of  the  President,  a  supervisor  can  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  that  office,  and  also  that  of  inspector,  he  may  direct 
the  same. 

6.  That  if  the  appointment  of  inspectors  of  surveys,  or  any  of  them,  was* 
not  made  during  the  then  session  of  Congress,  the  President  had  pow- 
er to  make  the  appointment  during  the  recess,  to  expire  at  the  end  of  the 
next  session  of  Congress. 

By  this  section  the  President,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  had  the  power  to  create  three  sets  of  officers  : 

1.  Supervisors  to  each  district. 

2.  As  many  inspectors  to  each  survey  as  the  President  should  deem  ne- 
cessary. 

3.  Officers  of  the  customs  to  be  inspectors  in  any  survey  of  inspection. 
And  the  President  had  also  the  power  to  unite  the  office  of  supervisor 

with  that  of  inspector  ;  but  that  this  union  did  not  take  place  prior  to 
the  3d  March,  1803,  is  quite  evident,  or  the  act  of  that  day  would  not 
have  been  passed.    But,  it  will  be  observed,  there  is  no  authority  to  unite 


Rep.  No.  669. 


355 


ihe  office  of  inspector  with  that  of  surveyor,  by  either  act,  though  the  duties 
of  supervisor  may  be  transferred  by  the  terms  of  both  acts. 

The  office  of  surveyor  had  been  created  and  its  duties  defined  prior  to 
the  passage  of  either  of  these  acts,  and  the  *  districts  of  surveys"  were  in  no 
manner  attached  to  the  duties  of  the  office  of  surveyor  by  the  act  of 
1791,  one  of  the  leading  objects  of  which  was  to  provide  for  the  collection 
of  duties  upon  distilled  spirits  within  the  United  States.  (See  14th  section 
to  the  end  of  the  act.)  The  performance  of  many  of  the  services  connect- 
ed with  these  provisions  was  subsequently  devolved  upon  the  collector  of 
internal  revenue. 

By  the  general  tenor  of  this  act  of  1791,  it  is  apparent  the  "supervisor" 
was  the  great  officer  of  the  revenue,  for  the  objects  specified  in  the  act,  and 
the  inspector  was  subordinate  to  him.  The  classification  in  the  mode  and 
manner  of  appointments,  and  the  duties  directed  to  be  performed  to  and 
by  him  as  prescribed  in  the  12th  section  of  the  act,  is  sufficient  proof  of  this. 
It  is  admitted  that  this  "  supervisor"  had  the  power  to  make  certain  ap- 
pointments enumerated  in  the  following  sections  : 

By  the  18th  section,  he  was  authorized  to  appoint  certain  officers,  to  have 
charge  and  survey  of  the  distilleries  within  his  district. 

By  the  23d  section,  it  was  provided  that  the  duties  on  stills  shall  be  col- 
lected under  the  management  of  the  supervisor,  who  shall  appoint  and 
assign  proper  officers  for  the  surveys  of  the  said  stills,  and  the  admeasure- 
ment thereof,  and  the  collection  of  the  duties  thereupon. 

By  the  26th  section,  they  are  authorized  to  visit  and  inspect,  or  cause  to 
be  visited  and  inspected,  by  some  proper  officer  or  officers  of  inspection, 
<5*c,  and  shall  mark,  or  cause  to  be  marked,  fyc. 

By  the  35th  section,  there  is  a  similar  phraseology. 

By  the  50th  section,  the  ''supervisors  of  the  revenue,  or  any  of  them,  or 
their  lawful  deputy,  are  authorized  to  administer  an  oath,  in  every  case  in 
which  an  oath  or  affirmation  is  required,"  by  virtue  of  this  act. 

By  the  52d  section,  provision  is  made  for  exportation  of  distilled  spirits, 
whose  return  is  to  be  given  to  the  "proper  officer  of  inspection,"  where- 
upon it  shall  be  the  duty  of  "  said  officer"  to  inspect  by  "  himself  or  depu- 
ty" the  casks,  &c. 

By  the  58th  section,  provision  is  made  for  the  payment  of  the  said 
supervisors'  inspections,  and  to  the  deputies  and  officers  by  them  to  be  em- 
ployed, to  be  paid  out  of  the  product  of  the  duties  arising  from  the  spirits 
distilled  within  the  United  States. 

The  deputies  authorized  by  these  provisions,  to  be  appointed  by  the 
supervisors,  are  not  general  deputies,  but  special  ones,  to  perform  cer- 
tain specified  acts,  relating  alone  to  the  manufacture  of  distilled  spirits,  and 
to  no  other  acts  ;  and  the  authority  of  these  supervisors,  in  the  appointment 
of  deputies,  could  not  extend  beyond  the  powers  delegated  to  them,  and 
consequently  the  deputies  to  be  appointed  by  them  had  but  limited  powers, 
and  any  acts  done  exceeding  those  powers  would  be  wholly  void. 

The  office  of  supervisor  was  not  abolished  by  the  act  of  1799,  as  will 
appear  by  the  41st  and  42d  sections  of  that  act ;  and  I  am  inclined  to  be- 
lieve that  this  officer  was  "the  chief  officer  of  inspection"  alluded  to  in 
that  act.  The  form  of  the  certificate,  in  the  41st  section,  affords  some 
reasons  for  this  conclusion.  But  it  will  be  remarked  that  the  powers  of 
that  officer  are  not  in  that  act  enlarged  so  far  as  concerns  his  authority  for 
the  appointment  of  deputies,  nor,  indeed,  is  the  name  of  deputy  inspector 
or  deputy  supervisor  in  any  manner  mentioned ;  and  the  inspector  of  the 


356 


Kep.  No.  669. 


port  now  has  no  authority  for  the  appointment  of  a  "  deputy  inspector  of 
the  revenue,"  without  its  being  derived  from  the  following  sources : 

1.  Unless  the  President,  under  the  act  of  1803,  "attached  the  duties" 
of  the  office  of  supervisor  to  the  office  of  inspector  or  surveyor. 

2.  Unless  the  words  "  attach  the  duties"  should  be  held  to  carry  with 
them  the  powers  belonging  to  the  office  of  supervisor. 

3.  Unless  it  should  be  held  that  the  power  in  the  supervisor  to  appoint 
a  deputy  to  do  a  particular  act  should  be  considered  a  sufficient  power  to* 
do  all  acts. 

As  to  the  first  proposition,  I  am  wholly,  but,  assuming  that  the  Presi- 
dent did  so  "attach  the  duties,"  I  cannot  bring  my  mind  to  believe  that  all 
the  powers  conferred  upon  the  supervisor  could  have  been  transferred  by 
the  authority  given  to  the  President.  The  supervisors  had  the  power  of 
appointing  deputies  for  certain  limited  purposes  ;  but  he  was  not  obliged  to 
appoint  them,  and  therefore  the  power  of  appointment  was  not  one  of 
the  duties  attached,  which  could  be  transferred  by  the  President  to  an  of- 
ficer subordinate  in  the  law  to  the  officer  on  whom  the  power  was  originally 
conferred.  But  if  I  am  not  correct  in  this,  then  it  is  very  certain  that  no 
larger  powers  than  the  supervisor  possessed  could  be  transferred  by  the 
President  to  any  other  "officer  of  the  Government,"  and  the  power  did  not 
reside  in  the  supervisor  to  appoint  a  general  deputy.  If  the  President  had 
the  power  to  "attach  the  duties,"  he  had  not  the  power  to  authorize  the 
inspector  of  the  revenue  to  appoint  deputy  supervisors ;  and  he  had  not  the 
power  before,  and  the  President  could  not  give  it,  to  appoint  deputy  in- 
spectors of  the  revenue. 

The  large  powers  conferred  upon  the  President,  by  the  4th  section  of  the 
act  of  1791,  "  to  appoint  such  and  so  many  officers  of  the  customs  to  be  in- 
spectors, in  any  survey  of  inspection,^  he  shall  deem  advisable  to  employ 
in  the  execution  of  this  act,"  would  seem  to  forbid  the  idea  that  it  was  the- 
intention  of  the  Legislature  to  clothe  a  subordinate  with  the  like  power,  or 
a  power  as  effectual  to  that  end  as  was  conferred  upon  "  the  President,  by 
and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate ;"  and  hence  it  is  but  fair  to 
conclude  that  the  office  of  supervisor  was  to  have  no  power  by  implication, 
but  only  such  as  was  especially  set  down  to  him  in  that  behalf. 

If  these  were  not  the  views  of  the  Legislature,  why  should  it,  by  the  12th 
section  of  the  act  of  the  5th  of  June,  1794,  while  legislating  upon  the  same 
subject,  have  declared  that  it  was  lawful  for  the  supervisors  and  inspectors 
of  the  revenue,  "at  their  own  expense,  to  appoint  deputies  to  aid  them  in 
the  execution  of  the  duties,  in  cases  of  occasional  and  necessary  absence 
or  of  sickness,  and  not  otherwise.71  This  is  the  same  provision  incorporated 
in  the  22d  section  of  the  act  of  1799,  in  relation  to  collectors,  naval  officers, 
and  surveyors,  appointing  deputies ;  and  but  for  an  enlargement,  by  the 
act  of  1817,  confined  to  the  action  of  the  collector  only,  I  could  have  no 
deputy  but  for  the  occasion  last  referred  to. 

The  act  of  1794  creates  no  new  office,  but  gives  to  the  President  and 
Senate,  (see  section  1,)  the  power  to  appoint  supervisors,  inspectors  of  sur- 
veys, and  inspectors  of  ports ;  and  it  must,  therefore,  control  the  act  of 
1791,  and  especially  so  as  it  extends  (see  section  14)  in  some  respects  to 
wines  and  teas,  as  well  as  distilled  spirits,  so  far  as  relates  to  the  duties 
and  powers  of  "supervisors  or  inspectors  of  the  revenue." 

From  these  considerations,  I  am  forced  to  continue  my  belief  that  I  was 


Rep.  No.  669. 


357 


correct  in  exercising  the  prerogative  of  nominating  the  "markers"  or 
"deputy  inspectors  of  the  revenue." 

I  made  the  nominations  in  perfect  good  faith,  without  in  the  slightest  de- 
gree intending  to  trespass  upon  the  rights  or  wounding  the  dignity  of  the 
surveyor.  I  found  their  names  on  the  printed  list  I  obtained  at  the  sur- 
veyor's office,  under  the  "  title  of  deputy  inspectors."  I  could  not  find  any 
such  officer  named  in  the  act  of  1799  ;  and  as  they  were,  in  common  par- 
lance, as  well  as  by  the  laws  of  1836  and  1837,  called  markers,  I  filled  up 
the  warrant  in  that  way,  but  afterwards  added  the  words  "  deputy  inspect- 
ors," more  with  a  view  of  adopting  the  name  that  Mr.  Craig's  list  assign- 
ed them,  than  from  a  belief  that  they  were  truly  designated. 
I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  Collector's  Office, 

New  York,  July  10,  1S39. 

Gentlemen  :  The  business  in  the  woollens  loft  in  your  department,  I 
am  satisfied,  from  information  I  have  received,  will  be  heavy  this  season, 
and  it  has  indeed  already  commenced,  and  I  am  satisfied  that  the  labors 
in  that  loft  will  be  greater  than  ought  to  be  imposed  upon  Mr.  Lounsberry 
and  Mr.  Tripler.  I  would  therefore  respectfully  request  that  Mr.  Cairns 
should  be  placed  in  that  loft,  to  aid  the  other  gentlemen  already  there. 

It  you  will  adopt  this  course,  I  will  confer  with  you  in  supplying  his 
place  in  the  loft  he  is  now  in. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

To  the  Principal  Appraisers 

of  the  port  of  New  York. 


Postscript  of  a  letter  to  B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  United  States  District  At- 
torney. 

*  Custom-House,  New  York,  Jlugust  9,  1839. 
P.  S.  It  is  proper  to  remark,  that  the  person  entering  is  bound  by  the 
entry,  and  not  the  invoice,  though  the  invoice  ought  to  be  a  copy  of  the 
entry.  You  Avill  notice  that  the  merchants  always  appraise  higher  than 
the  public  appraisers  ;  and  therefore,  when  you  show  the  entry,  and  call  the 
merchants  who  have  appraised,  the  onus  is  then  on  the  other  side.  I 
would  avoid  calling  our  own  appraisers  when  you  can  avoid  it. 

J.  H0YTT. 


Extract  from  a  letter  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  Collector,  to  B.  F.  Butler,  District 
Attorney,  dated  August  12,  1S39. 

I  send  you  a  statistical  table,  showing  the  difference  between  the  several 
appraisements:  and  if  a  defence  is  made  in  the  case,  you  can  select  such  of 
the  appraisements  to  go  upon  as  you  may  think  best. 


558 


Kep.  No.  669. 


I  do  not  desire  to  bring  our  appraisers  before  the  public  in  the  attitude 
they  would  stand  in  differing  so  widely  with  the  ?nerchants.  It  would 
tend  to  destroy  public  confidence  in  them. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  4,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  received  your  letter  of  the  2d  instant.  In  reply,  I  have  to  say 
that  Joseph  Priestly  is  a  manufacturer  in  England,  and  is  in  the  habit  of 
sending  cloths  direct  to  our  auctioneers. 

We  have  now  some  under  seizure,  where  they  were  raised  from  13$  to 
19  per  cent.  I  adopt  this  rule  in  regard  to  goods  sent  out  by  manufac- 
turers, that  if  they  are  raised  15  per  cent,  to  sieze  them. 

We  arrive  at  value  by  examination,  and  allow  that  there  may  be  a  dif- 
ference of  5  per  cent,  in  purchases,  and  that  10  per  cent,  is  a  large  import- 
ing profit ;  and  therefore  it  is  safe  to  seize  when  the  appraisers  put  up 
goods  15  per  cent.  This  is  a  liberal  rule  to  adopt  with  reference  to  manu- 
facturers. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  Frick,  Esq., 

Collector,  Baltimore. 


Treasury  Department,  September  7,  1839. 
Sir  :  Yours  of  the  5th  instant,  in  explanation  of  the  large  increase  in  the 
number  of  custom-house  officers  at  New  York  since  1836,  has  been  re- 
ceived. 

In  the  great  mass  of  business  imposed  on  you,  I  suppose  that  it  might 
have  escaped  your  notice,  that  the  proportion  of  officers  has  been  so  much 
increased,  and  had  been  a  matter  of  complaint  by  others.  But  the  De- 
partment has  never  entertained  any  doubts  that  you  considered  the  ad- 
ditional numbers  necessary  and  proper,  and  that  they  were  so,  or  it  would 
not  have  approved  your  recommendations.  The  only  wish  of  the  Depart- 
ment now  is,  that,  in  the  pressure  of  other  engagements,  it  may  not  be 
overlooked  that  the  increase  over,  in  J  836,  was  proposed  as  temporary,  as 
will  be  seen  by  the  records  and  files ;  and  that  the  increase  since  also  should 
be  dispensed  with  at  the  earliest  day  the  public  interest  and  the  due  ac- 
commodation of  the  importers  will  permit.  But,  of  course,  it  is  not  desired 
lo  be  done  so  ever. 

In  respect  to  the  comparisons  of  imports  and  duties  in  1836  and  1839, 
one  circumstance  appears  to  have  escaped  attention,  which  may  or  may 
not  affect  the  result.  The  duties  paid  in  the  calendar  years  of  lb36  and 
1839  are  not  those  accruing  on  the  importations  of  the  calendar  years  of 
1836  and  1839,  except  in  part.  But,  as  you  will  remember,  they  are  only 
the  cash  duties,  chiefly  accruing  on  importations  in  those  years,  and  the 
credit  duties  on  importations  for  the  two  first  quarters,  and  half  of  the  third 
quarter  of  those  years,  and  the  credit  duties  accruing  in  the  fourth  quarter 
of  the  previous  calendar  year,  and  half  of  those  accruing  in  the  third 
quarter  of  the  preceding  calendar  year. 


Eep.  No.  669. 


359 


I  am  not  certain  how  much  this  would  vary  the  result,  as  I  have  insti- 
tuted no  examination  ;  but  it  may,  in  fact,  vary  it  largely  either  way. 

Respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector, 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  24,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  this  date,  I  have  to  inform  you  that  yoi* 
Tiave  received  from  this  office  seventy-one  bonds  of  Post,  Gibson,  &  Post, 
for  suit,  which  is  the  entire  number,  as  you  admit,  on  the  statement  of  the* 
custom-house,  furnished  to  Mr.  Jonathan  W.  Post.  Seven  bonds  were  deliv- 
ered to  you,  at  maturity,  in  the  first  quarter  1839.  Forty-four  bonds  were 
delivered  at  one  time,  during  the  second  quarter  1839  ;  and  afterwards,  in 
the  same  quarter,  two  additional  bonds,  as  they  came  to  maturity,  were 
sent  to  you.  Eighteen  bonds  were  delivered  on  the  20th  August,  1839,  in 
this  present  (third)  quarter.  These,  together,  you  will  see,  make  up  the 
whole  number,  seventy-one. 

Respectfully, 

J.  PIOYT,  Collector.. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


[extract.] 

Custom-House,  New  York,  October  1,  1839. 

In  reference  to  the  expenses  of  this  port,  I  beg  leave  to  say  that,  during 
the  last  quarter  we  sent  to  the  appraisers'  store,  for  examination,  18,175 
loads  of  goods,  each  of  which  loads  cost  us  two  shillings  and  six  pence,  be- 
sides those  we  send  to  the  sample  office  ;  and  for  this  item  of  cartage  alone 
■\ve  expended,  in  the  last  quarter,  about  $6,000,  and  nearly  an  equal 
amount  for  labor  in  the  same  period.  I  hope  these  things  may  not  be  for- 
gotten, in  summing  up  at  the  end  of  the  year. 

The  steamer  made  the  effort  to  sail  to-day,  but  I  understood  her  machin- 
ery got  out  of  order,  and  the  story  was  very  current  that  I  had  stopped  her  ; 
but  this  was  without  foundation,  and  I  have  not  had  the  time  to  ascertain 
-whether  she  has  actually  gone  or  not.  She  takes,  I  think,  about  $800,000 
in  specie,  $600,000  only  of  which  is  yet  manifested  ;  the  balance  will  be  in 
the  morning.  There  has  been  about  a  million  shipped  in  the  various  ves<- 
sels  that  sail  for  Europe  to-day. 

I  have  not  had  the  leisure  to  go  into  Wall  street,  to  learn  the  state  of 
things  there  :  but  I  am  induced  to  believe  there  is  more  confidence  than 
there  was  a  fortnight  since.  1  hope  to  get  off  the  accounts  of  the  second 
quarter  in  the  course  of  the  week. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


360 


Rep.  No.  669. 


HOYT'S  CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING  TO  JOHN  TAYLOR,  JR.,  AND  OTHERS. 


Wednesday  Morning,  September  18,  1839. 
Sir  :  Cannot  John  Taylor,  jr.,  be  permitted  to  return  and  settle  up  his 
business,  on  some  conditions,  without  being  subject  to  such  heavy  bail  as 
would  have  been  required  had  his  person  been  taken  previous  to  his 
leaving  ?  It  was  that  which  alarmed  him.  Finding  that  he  could  not  obtain 
security  for  such  an  amount,  he  preferred  his  freedom  away  to  an  incarce- 
ration at  here. 

I  know  nothing  of  Mr.  Taylor's  business,  as  connected  with  the  custom- 
house; it  may  have  been  very  bad,  or  not;  but  this  I  know — he  has  been  a 
sincere  and  faithful  friend  to  7ne,  through  evil  and  through  good  report ; 
and,  as  such,  if  I  could  be  the  humble  instrument  in  bringing  about  so 
desirable  a  result,  both  in  satisfaction  to  you  and  himself,  I  "should  feel  as 
if  I  had  given  some  small  return  for  the  many  favors  I  have  received  at  his 
hands.  Therefore,  if  you  think  the  subject  worthy  of  consideration,  the 
proposition  is,  distinctly,  on  what  terms,  if  any,  may  John  Taylor,  jr.,  be 
permitted  to  return  to  the  city  of  New  York,  and  remain  one  year,  for  the 
purpose  of  settling  up  his  business,  without  attempting  to  do  any,  free 
from  arrest  by  you  or  the  Government  for  what  has  already  taken 
place.  I  make  this  proposition  more  on  my  account  than  his,  as  I  cannot 
bear  to  see  one  who  has  been  so  good  to  me  banished  from  the  place 
where  all  who  knew  him  loved  him.    He  has  his  errors  undoubtedly,  but 
he  possesses  many  noble  and  generous  qualities,  kind  to  all,  and  his  money 
employed  to  assist  individuals  (often  to  my  knowledge)  that  had  no  claims, 
nor  where  he  ever  expected  to  be  the  least  tempted.    With  the  above 
remarks,  I  repeat,  if  any  thing  can  be  done,  it  would  be  gratifying;  if  not, 
I  have  done  ;  you  know  best. 

For  your  favor  to  me  the  other  day  I  thank  you  kindly. 

Faithfully  yours, 

C.  W.  DAYTON. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq. 

If  you  feel  disposed  to  enter  into  an  arrangement,  I  should  like  to  hear 
from  you  to-morrow. 

C.  W.  DAYTON. 


New  York,  September  22,  1S39. 
Respected  Sir  :  If  you  would  have  no  objection  to  repeat  what  you 
said  to  me  the  day  before  yesterday  (respecting  the  protection  you  would 
give  to  John  Taylor,  jr.,  should  he  comply  with  your  request)  in  the 
presence  of  T.  Blackburne,  I  will  leave  this  afternoon  for  Montreal,  in 
order  to  bring  him  back  with  me. 

The  reasons  for  the  above  request  are:  1st.  I  may  have  misunderstood 
you.  2d.  It  will  be  a  much  stronger  inducement  for  him  to  avail  himself 
of  that  course  to  come  to  some  satisfactory  arrangement  of  the  pending 
difficulties,  of  whatever  kind  or  character  they  may  be.  Please  say  yes  or 
no,  on  a  slip  of  paper,  which  will  be  quite  sufficient  for  me. 

Yours,  &c. 

CHARLES  W.  DAYTON. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


361 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  19,  1839. 
Sir:  On  the  5th  of  August  last  I  wrote  to  you,  among  other  things,  that 
I  directed  suits  to  be  commenced  against  John  Taylor,  jr.,  George  Shaw, 
and  many  others,  for  transactions  alleged  to  be  fraudulent,  at  the  custom- 
house in  this  city.  I  have  settled  the  suits  against  Taylor  and  Shaw, 
receiving  from  the  former  $25,000,  and  from  the  latter  $15,000.  The 
.share  of  the  United  States  was  placed  to  their  credit  this  day,  on  the  books 
of  this  office. 

I  now  send  a  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  by  me  to  the  district  attorney, 
under  date  of  the  3d  October,  explaining  the  reason  why  I  thought  the 
suits  should  be  settled  on  the  terms  proposed.  A  like  reason  exists  in  the 
case  of  Shaw.  Several  of  the  persons  referred  to  in  my  letter  to  you  are 
now  negotiating  for  settlement,  for  similar  reasons;  and  I  shall  probably 
close  with  them,  if  the  district  attorney,  as  he  did  in  the  two  cases  referred 
to,  recommend  that  course. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  12, 1S39. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  9th  instant,  to  me  and  Mr.  Wasson,  has  been 
received  ;  and  I  have  now  to  say,  in  answer — 

1st.  That  it  is,  perhaps,  as  well  to  let  the  cases  go  off  till  March,  if  the 
other  side  request  it.    We  do  not  desire  it. 

2d.  We  think  you  ought  to  take  the  goods  from  the  possession  of  the 
HorTmans,  for  our  people  are  unwilling  to  go  into  the  store  to  examine 
them.  We  do  not  intend  to  throw  the  least  suspicion  over  the  character 
or  the  fairness  of  the  house  in  that  matter;  but  we  are  equally  fair  as  they 
are,  and  we  do  not  mean  to  put  ourselves  in  the  power  of  any  persons ; 
and  therefore  it  is  that  we  desire  to  be  upon  our  own  ground,  (that  is,  under 
the  roof  of  the  United  States,)  and  not  that  of  the  importers  or  their  agents. 
We  are  sworn  officers,  and  we  do  not  mean  to  examine  goods,  and  testify 
to  that  examination,  when  the  goods  are  to  be  left  in  a  position  that  would 
enable  others  to  take  such  measures  as  would  give  them  the  power  of  prov- 
ing us  in  error  by  means  that  we  could  not  control.  The  claimants  have 
the  right  to  bond  them  under  the  89th  section  of  the  act  of  1799  ;  and,  if 
they  decline  to  do  that,  the  goods  are  in  the  custody  of  the  law,  and 
the  marshal  or  the  collector  is  bound  to  take  and  keep  possession  of 
them  until  the  judgment  of  the  court  surrenders  them  to  the  claimants. 
When  we  have  information  that  the  goods  now  in  Hoffmans'  store  are  in 
the  possession  of  the  officers  of  the  United  States,  Messrs.  Cairns  and  fVas- 
*son  will  go  on  to  look  at  them. 

3d.  In  relation  to  Bottomry's  goods,  we  have  to  say, in  addition  to  what 
was  stated  in  my  letter  of  the  4th  instant,  we  have  compared  the  invoices 
on  file  in  this  office  with  the  memorandum  sent  to  us  by  Mr.  Frick,  on  the 
4th  of  September,  purporting  to  be  copies  of  invoices  sent  by  Bottomly  to 
HorTmans,  on  the  9th,  10th,  and  20th  of  August,  to  see  how  the  goods  are 
identified  with  the  invoices  in  our  office,  as  compared  with  those  sent  to 
the  Hoflmans  by  the  importer,  and  we  do  not  find  a  single  piece  to  corres- 


/ 


362  Eep.  No.  669. 

pond  in  number  of  the  pieces  or  of  the  yards,  and  hence  it  throws  upon? 
the  claimants  the  onus  to  prove  how,  where,  and  when  the  goods  were 
imported.  They  have,  in  their  notice,  stated,  and  they  mean  to  prove,  the 
goods  were  imported  in  the  ships  named ;  and,  by  a  comparison  of  the 
invoices  by  these  ships,  it  turns  out  they  were  not  so  imported.  This  is- 
another  reason  why  the  goods  should  be  placed  under  the  control  of  our 
own  officers  forthwith. 

This,  we  think,  disposes  of  Mr.  Bottomly. 

As  to  Mr.  Taylor's  goods. — In  reference  to  this,  we  have  to  say — 
1st.  In  a  letter  from  Mr.  Frick,  under  date  of  September  21,  a  list  of  the 

goods  is  sent,  and  it  is  said  none  of  the  numbers  correspond  with  the  goods 

seized. 

2d.  It  is  also  said  that  Readell  &  Co.  substituted  numbers  of  their  own  in 
room  of  the  original,  and  that  the  owner  should  not  be  prejudiced  thereby. 
In  answer  to  this,  we  have  to  remark — 

1st.  We  have  got  up  the  invoices  and  entries  of  the  goods  by  the  ships 
named  in  the  memorandum  furnished  by  Messrs.  Readell,  and  it  appears 
that  the  invoices  by  the  ships  Columbus,  George  Washington,  (three  in- 
voices,) Sheffield,  and  Garrick,  were  all  examined  by  Edward  Tripler,  a 
clerk  in  the  appraisers'  office,  and  are  therefore  subject  to  the  same  criti- 
cism made  on  this  subject,  in  my  letter  of  the  4th  of  December,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  goods  of  Bottomly,  and  to  which  letter  I  refer  for  this  purpose. 

2d.  Package  (by  the  Columbus)  R  178  was  the  examined  package,  and 
•the  number  of  yards  represented  on  Readell's  memorandum  as  the  original 
number  corresponds  with  the  number  of  yards  on  the  invoice  in  our  pos- 
session. Package  F  240  (by  the  George  Washington)  corresponds,  but  it 
■was  not  an  examined  package,  (that  is,  the  package  was  not  examined  in 
the  appraisers'  store.)  Package  F  319  (by  the  Garrick)  was  examined  in 
the  appraisers'  store,  and  corresponds  in  the  yards.  Package  F  223  (by 
the  Sheffield)  was  not  examined,  but  it  corresponds ;  and  the  other  pack- 
ages also  correspond,  viz :  H  206  and  127,  (by  the  George  Washington.) 
The  latter  was  examined,  and  the  former  was  not. 

The  case  then  stands  upon  the  question— 

1st.  As  to  the  fact  of  alteration  of  the  numbers  by  Readell,  and  theiF 
motive  moving  thereto.  * 

2d.  As  to  the  fact  of  undervaluation,  which  is  for  us  to  show  ;  and  the 
latter  question  must  be  the  controlling  one  in  the  result  of  the  case;  and, 
therefore,  we  are  to  give  a  rigid  scrutiny  to  the  question. 

We  have  no  other  lists  of  claimants  furnished,  and  therefore  we  cannot 
speak  at  this  time  of  any  of  the  goods  other  than  Bottomly's  and  Taylor's; 
and  you  have  now  our  views  upon  them,  and  we  wait  for  further  advices. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

N.  Williams,  Esq., 

Untied  Slates  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


Custom-Hotjse,  New  York,  May  25,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  was  this  moment  served  with  a  subpoena  from  the  district  court 
in  your  district,  on  the  behalf  of  the  defendant  in  the  case  of  the  Unitek 
States  against  88  pieces  of  goods  ;  John  Taylor,  claimant. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


363 


I  would  most  cheerfully  attend,  if  it  were  possible  for  me  to  do  so ;  but 
as  the  distance  is  too  far  for  the  action  of  a  subpcena,  I  beg  you  to  inform. 
Mr.  Taylor's  counsel  (whose  name  does  not  appear  on  the  subpoena)  that 
I  will  attend  before  any  commissioner  in  this  city,  and  give  testimony  in 
the  case,  or  I  will  furnish  any  papers  or  documents  on  file  in  this  office 
that  may  be  called  for ;  and  I  again  repeat,  if  my  official  duties  would 
permit  me  to  attend  in  Baltimore,  I  would  most  cheerfully  do  so. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

N.  Williams,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  22,  1840. 
Dear  Sir  :  Messrs.  Cairns  and  Wasson  will  be  with  you  on  Satur  day 
or  Sunday,  and  I  wish  you  to  make  all  readiness  for  them,  so  that  they 
need  not  be  detained  longer  than  is  required  by  the  exigency  of  the  occa- 
sion. 

//  is  entirely  i?iadmissible  that  Mr.  Bottomly,  or  his  agent,  stand  by 
present  at  the  examination  or  appraisement.  They  have  no  more  right  to 
be  present  than  you  have  to  a  seat  alongside  Chief  Justice  Taney,  on  the 
bench,  in  trying  the  cases  wherein  you  are  interested.  I  want  the  collector 
to  swear  the  appraisers  before  they  proceed  to  the  work,  so  as  that  the  act 
of  1830  may  be  complied  with. 

I  notice  what  you  say  in  your  postscript.  I  do  not  know  how  I  stand 
in  these  affairs. 

Yours,  truly, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

N.  Williams,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  7,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  send  you  the  following  papers  of  William  Bottomly,  viz  : 
Letter  and  oath  of  William  Bottomly,  dated  31st  December,  1S39,  rela- 
tive to  goods  per  ship  Republic,  marked  N  T  26S  to  279. 
Invoice  of  same. 
Entry  of  same. 

Appraisement  of  same  by  R.  B.  Brown  and  William  C.  Langley. 
Appraisement  of  same  by  United  States  appraisers. 
Entry  of  William  Bottomly  per  ship  Roscoe,  12th  February,  1840,  N  V 
124  to  138. 

Invoice  of  same. 
Appraisement  of  same. 

Entry  of  William  Bottomly  per  ship  South  America,  22d  April,  1840, 
P  L 

of   s   673  to  6S2,  with  appraisement  attached. 
Invoice  of  same. 

Entry  of  William  Bottomly  per  ship  Star,  7th  April,  1840,  of  N  T  67 
to  82,  with  appraisement  attached. 
Invoice  of  same. 

12* 


t 


364  Rep.  No.  669. 

You  will  see,  by  the  entry  by  the  Republic,  that  an  appeal  was  taker 
from  the  United  States  appraisers,  and  the  usual  affidavit  was  made,  anc 
Messrs.  Brown  and  Langley  were  appointed;  and  their  appraisement  wa: 
j£S3  2s.  Id.  less  than  the  United  States  appraisers,  and  £245  3s.  3d.  ove; 
the  invoice. 

I  permitted  the  entry  to  be  made  on  the  appraisement  of  the  merchants 
So  in  the  case  of  the  entry  by  the  Roscoe.  Messrs.  Lounsberry  anc 
Cairns  differed,  and  I  permitted  the  entry  to  be  made  by  the  invoice,  anc 
waived  the  appraisement  which  appears  on  the  papers.  It  would,  then 
seem  that  I  have  not  been  cruel  or  oppressive  on  Mr.  Bottomly,  and  that 
in  case  he  appealed,  he  had  the  benefit  of  it ;  and  therefore  there  was  no 
apology  for  his  not  appealing,  if  he  felt  himself  aggrieved. 

I  also  send  a  memorandum  (in  pencil  mark)  of  Mr.  Wasson,  which  is 
connected  with  the  copy  of  papers  I  gave  you  to-day. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector.. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Attorney. 


HOYT'S  CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING  TO  DIFFERENT  SUBJECTS. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  22,  1S40. 

Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  19th  instant,  in  which  you  say  that  "  drafts 
Nos.  1,485  and  1,486,  charged  in  my  return  ot  the  15th  instant,  are  endorsed, 
P.  J.  Bujac,  by  Peter  E.  Frevall,  attorney.  As  the  accounting  officers  ob- 
ject to  such  endorsements  without  evidence  of  attorneyship,  you  ask  me  to 
forward  such  as  may  satisfy  them." 

The  first  named  draft  is  for  $243  54,  and  the  second  for  $23  37.  Out 
of  the  1,800  drafts,  amounting  to  nearly  $20,000,000,  that  I  have  paid  since 
I  have  been  in  office,  such  a  question,  I  think,  has  not  been  raised  before; 
and  it  may  therefore  be  taken  as  sure  token  that  "the  accounting  officers" 
have  a  fresh  inoculation  of  zeal  for  the  public  safety.  Mr.  Frevall  has 
acted  as  attorney  for  Mr.  Bujac,  in  this  city,  for  only  about  ten  years,  and 
has  had,  during  that  time,  a  power  of  attorney  on  file  in  this  office,  as  evi- 
dence of  his  authority  to  act  as  such  attorney.  But,  whether  this  be  so  or 
not,  the  question  is  very  prematurely  raised  by  the  accounting  officers.  It 
would  be  soon  enough  for  them  to  ask  for  this  authority  when  the  Gov- 
ernment are  called  upon  by  Mr.  Bujac  to  pay  the  debt  over  again  ;  and,  if 
I  could  not  then  show  a  competent  legal  authority  to  bind  him  in  the  pay-  I 
ment  alleged  to  have  been  made,  I  would  be  responsible  to  the  Govern- 
ment for  the  amount  they  might  have  to  repay ;  and  the  accounting  officers 
would  then  have  a  right  to  charge  such  payment  to  my  account,  to  balance 
a  credit  they  had  before  given  me. 

It  was  a  saying  of  a  distinguished  philosopher,  (Sam  Patch.)  "that  some 
people  knew  some  things  as  well  as  other  people ;"  and,  with  great  re- 
spect, I  would  suggest  to  the  aforesaid  "accounting  officers,"  that,  if  they 
would  indulge  but  very  slightly  in  the  philosophical  reflection,  I  think  they 
would  lose  nothing  in  dignity  or  importance.  I  do  not  ask  them  to  imagine  ; 


Rep.  No.  669. 


365 


for  a  moment  that  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York  has  any  know- 
ledge of  the  appropriate  forms  of  business,  or  that  he  would  take  any  pains 
to  protect  the  rights  of  the  Government  or  himself  against  frauds  or  forge- 
ries in  the  endorsement  of  drafts. 

1  had  occasion  to  write  the  Treasurer,  in  connexion  with  this  subject,  on 
the  14th  of  October  last,  which  I  supposed  would  have  satisfied  you  that 
the  collector  was  not  wholly  indifferent  to  the  matter. 

The  "accounting  officers"  have  even  called  on  me  for  proof  of  hand- 
writing of  the  payee,  endorser,  or  endorsee  of  the  draft.  And  how  do  they 
know  that  the  signatures  are  true  ?  They  do  not  personally  know  it,  and 
they  must  rely  upon  one  or  two  considerations  : 

1.  Upon  my  vigilance  in  the  matter;  or, 

2  Upon  the  fact  that  no  claim  is  made  subsequently  by  the  person  re- 
ally entitled  to  the  money,  which  is  evidence  of  a  correct  appropriation  of 
the  fund. 

The  principle  is  precisely  the  same  with  reference  to  an  endorsement  by 
a  person  purporting  to  act  as  attorney  as  by  one  acting  in  his  own  person. 

It  is  a  question  in  both  cases  whether  the  party's  signature  is  to  the  in- 
strument ;  and  with  the  same  propriety  a  verification  of  the  fact  can  be 
called  for  in  the  one  case  as  the  other. 

You  are  in  the  habit  of  drawing  drafts  on  me,  in  favor  of  corporations, 
by  name,  and  of  a  great  variety  of  persons  in  a  representative  character, 
such  as  presidents,  cashiers,  assignees,  agents,  and  attorneys ;  all  of  which 
drafts  I  pay,  and  take  what  I  deem  a  proper  endorsement.  I  have  never 
been  called  upon  for  any  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  such  endorsement; 
and  why  am  I  now  called  upon,  when  there  is  no  difference  in  principle, 
and  especially  so  in  cases  where  the  drafts  have  been  drawn  in  favor  of 
corporations  ?  For  instance,  I  have  had  my  drafts  drawn  on  me  in  favor 
of  the  Bank  of  America  and  the  Manhattan  Company,  which  I  have  paid 
on  the  endorsement  of  the  president  or  cashier  of  these  banks,  and  no  ex- 
ception has  been  taken.  Have  the  accounting  officers  a  resolution  of  the 
board  of  directors  of  either  of  said  banks,  showing  who  is  cashier  or  who  is 
president?  or  have  they  intuitive  knowledge  on  the  subject?  or  do  they 
rely  upon  my  knowledge  of  the  fact,  or  upon  general  information  as  to  the 
authority  of  these  officers  to  endorse  the  drafts  drawn  in  favor  of  the  banks  ? 
And  if  upon  that  point  they  are  satisfied,  how  are  they  satisfied  the  signa- 
tures are  genuine,  and  that  they  are  not  forged  ? 

I  had  always  supposed  that  I  took  the  risk  of  forgery  of  endorsements, 
and  the  competency  of  the  authority  of  the  person  to  receive  the  payment 
of  the  draft  presented  for  payment ;  but  if  the  accounting  officers  will  sat- 
isfy me  of  the  power  they  have  to  absolve  me  from  that  risk,  and  will  ab- 
solve me  accordingly,  then  I  will  surrender  up  to  them  the  evidence  in  my 
possession  that  the  payments  have  been  made  conformably  to  legal  rules ; 
and,  until  that  is  done,  I  shall  take  the  liberty  to  retain  the  proper  papers 
in  my  possession. 

You  may  consider  this  a  very  tedious  exposition  of  my  views  in  this 
matter,  and,  for  aught  I  know,  very  unsatisfactory;  but  it  strikes  me  to  be 
so  plain  a  case,  that  I  cannot  treat  it  in  any  other  way  than  I  have,  which 
I  hope  and  trust  will  be  entirely  conclusive,  in  the  opinions  of  the  account- 
ing officers. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

The  Treasurer  of  the  United  Sates. 


366 


Kep.  No.  669. 


Treasury  of  the  United  States, 

February  24,  1840. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  22d  instant,  which  reads  a  lecture,  over  my 
shoulders,  to  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Department,  upon  the  principles 
of  evidence,  has  been  referred  to  them,  and  first  in  order  to  the  First  Audi- 
tor. 

It  is  proper,  however,  that  I  should,  in  modern  phrase,  "  define  our  po- 
sition," in  this  matter,  which  I  will  endeavor  to  do  in  a  few  words: 

The  Treasurer  is  required  to  pay  warrants  on  him,  "out  of  any  moneys 
in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated  ;"  so  run  the  terms  of  the  ap- 
propriation acts.  But  the  moneys  in  your  hands  are  not  moneys  in  the 
Treasury ;  and  no  portion  of  them  are  so  considered  until  you  have  paid 
them  on  the  Treasurer's  drafts,  or  deposited  them  in  bank  to  his  credit. 

In  drawing  on  collectors  and  receivers,  then,  the  Treasurer  works  by  in- 
verting the  mode  used  with  legalized  depositories  ;  and,  consequently,  he 
cannot  acknowledge  to  have  received  into  the  Treasury,  as  a  payment  by 
a  collector,  the  amount  of  any  draft,  until  he  is  in  possession  of  such  evi- 
dence, on  the  face  of  the  draft  or  otherwise,  as  secures  to  him  a  credit  with 
the  accounting  officers,  for  the  payment  of  the  warrant  on  which  the  draft 
was  issued.  The  allowance  of  credit,  then,  to  a  collector,  for  paying  money 
into  the  Treasury,  other  than  his  deposites  in  bank,  is  dependent  upon  the 
allowance  of  credit  to  the  Treasurer  for  paying  that  same  money  out  of 
the  Treasury.  Hence  the  necessity  for  the  security  of  vouchers  in  this  of- 
fice, that  they  may  be  made  to  correspond  with  such  principles  of  evidence 
as  are  known  to  be  acted  on  by  the  accounting  officers,  at  the  earliest  pe- 
riod, rather  than  have  the  difficulty  increased  by  delay  until  the  settlement 
of  the  Treasurer's  accounts.  I  do  not  say  that  a  collector  may  not  be  en- 
titled to  a  credit  for  a  payment  to  the  Treasury,  when  the  accounting  offi- 
cers object  to  the  evidence,  but  that  the  Treasurer  will  not  knowingly  ac- 
knowledge such  payment  to  him,  unless  at  the  same  time  he  is  allowed 
credit  for  said  payment  by  him.  In  such  cases  he  acts  only  in  self-defence, 
lander  the  discretion  implied  in  the  4th  section  of  the  act  of  2d  September, 
1789. 

I  beg  that  you  will  not  for  a  moment  consider  me  as  supposing  the  col- 
lector of  the  customs  at  New  York  to  be  wholly,  or  at  all,  indifferent  to 
the  faithful  and  proper  discharge  of  his  official  duties,  for  the  reverse  is  the 
fact ;  but  I  confess  I  was  somewhat  surprised  to  find,  by  your  letter  of  the 
14th  October,  1839,  that  a  draft  in  favor  of  Elias  Kane,  navy  agent,  was 
refused,  because  of  the  omission  of  his  official  title  to  his  endorsement,  when 
in  your  return  of  19th  October,  the  same  week,  I  found  a  draft  No.  850, 
in  favor  of  Col.  H.  Stanton,  assistant  quartermaster  general,  and  No.  857 
in  favor  of  Captain  H.  Brewerton,  corps  of  engineers,  paid  upon  the  simple 
endorsment  of"  Henry  Stanton"  and  "H.  Brewerton,"  thus  verifying  an- 
other saying  of  a  "distinguished  philosopher,"  "  that  some  things  could  be 
done  as  well  as  others." 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

WM.  B.  RANDOLPH, 

•Acting  Treasurer  U.  S. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector, 


Rep.  No.  669. 


361 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  28, 1840. 
Sir  :  I  have  not  the  leisure  to  refer  to  your  letter  of  the  24th  instant  un- 
til now,  and  although  it  does  not  especially  require  an  answer,  yet  I  desire 
that  my  superiors  should  be  in  the  possession  of  my  reasons  for  all  my  of- 
ficial acts. 

I  had  supposed  that,  under  the  circular  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
of  the  9th  June,  1837,  all  money  in  the  hands  of  a  "sub-treasurer"  was, 
in  fact  as  well  as  fiction,  as  much  in  the  Treasury  as  it  formerly  was  when 
in  any  of  the  deposite  banks  ;  and  although  newspapers,  stump  orators,  &c, 
may  have  repeatedly  inquired  where  the  thing  called  the  Treasury  was  to 
be  found,  1  imagine  that  it  was  all  for  effect,  and  that  whether  the  money 
was  in  or  out  of  banks,  if  it  was  under  the  control  of  the  Treasurer,  it  was 
the  same  as  if  in  his  manual  possession  ;  and  therefore  I  did  not  expect 
to  hear  from  the  officer  bearing  the  name  of  Treasurer  of  the  United 
States,  that  moneys  in  the  hands  of  the  collector,  to  the  separate  credit  of 
that  Treasurer,  could  not  be  considered  in  the  Treasury,  until  that  collector 
had  "  paid  them  on  the  Treasurer's  drafts,  or  deposited  them  in  bank  to 
his  credit."  Here  you  will  perceive  two  distinct  propositions  are  laid 
down: 

1.  That  when  the  money  is  in  bank,  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  it  is 
considered  in  the  Treasury. 

2.  That  when  it  is  paid  out  by  a  collector,  on  the  draft  of  the  Treas- 
urer, it  is  then  also  in  the  Treasury. 

I  am  not  going  to  dispute  the  last  proposition,  but  only  to  remark,  that  I 
was  not  aware  that  the  forms  of  office  perverted  the  substance  of  things  to 
such  an  extent.  I  had  supposed  that  the  Treasurer  could  not  draw  his 
draft  to  pay  an  appropriation  or  a  debt  of  the  Government,  unless  upon 
moneys  in  the  Treasury,  and  that  the  money  I  report  to  him  weekly,  as 
standing  to  his  separate  credit  on  my  books,  was  charged  to  me  in  his, 
and  that  the  money  I  from  time  to  time  deposite  to  his  credit  in  bank  was 
debited  to  such  bank,  and  credited  to  me  also  on  his  books;  and  that,  in 
this  respect,  there  was  no  difference  between  natural  and  artificial  persons, 
and  that,  in  the  one  case  as  well  as  the  other,  the  money  was  equally  in 
the  Treasury,  according  to  the  understanding  of  the  law  makers  and  law 
executors.  And  I  also  supposed,  that  when  I  had  paid  the  Treasurer's 
draft  on  me,  the  money  went  into  circulation,  and  not  into  the  Treasury, 
but  that  it  was  taken  out,  by  means  of  that  draft,  in  satisfaction  of  some 
claim  upon  the  Government ;  otherwise  it  might  appear,  upon  the  books  of 
the  Treasurer,  that  more  claims  had  been  paid  than  the  Treasurer  had  the 
means  of  paying.  He  must  debit  somebody,  in  something,  for  the  draft 
he  draws  on  me;  and  for  all  the  payments  thus  made  for  one  week,  the 
time  taken  for  the  draft  to  get  back  to  you  as  paid,  it  would  seem  there 
was  no  money  in  the  Treasury  to  meet,  because  it  is  not  considered  in  the 
Treasury  until  it  is  put  in  circulation,  and  the  evidence  of  that  fact,  in  the 
shape  of  a  receipt,  or  the  draft,  is  returned  to  his  office.  But  to  come  to 
the  difficulties  you  state  ;  they  are  these  : 

1.  The  Treasurer  cannot  acknowledge  to  have  received  into  the  Treas- 
ury, as  a  payment  by  a  collector,  the  amount  of  any  draft,  until  he  is  in 
possession  of  such  evidence,  on  the  face  of  the  drafts  or  otherwise,  as 
will  secure  to  him  a  credit  with  the  accounting  officers  for  the  payment  of 
the  warrant  on  which  the  draft  was  issued. 

2.  The  allowance  of  credit,  then,  to  a  collector,  for  money  paid  into  the 


358 


Eep.  No.  669. 


Treasury,  other  than  his  deposites  in  bank,  is  dependent  upon  the  allowance 
of  credit  to  the  Treasurer  for  paying  the  same  money  out  of  the  Treasury. 

I  understand,  by  this,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  collector  and  Treasurer  to 
satisfy  the  "accounting  officers"  that  the  money  is  not  in  the  Treasury,  in 
order  to  prevail  upon  them  to  admit  that  it  is ;  in  other  words,  that  when 
the  draft  on  me  is  paid,  which  puts  the  money  in  circulation,  and  they 
have  proof  of  this  fact,  then  it  is  to  be  considered  it  is  in  the  Treasury. 

In  reference  to  a  supposed  inconsistency  on  my  part  in  paying  drafts 
after  the  14th  of  October,  which  you  refer  to,  after  having  referred  to  the  per- 
sonal endorsement  of  Mr.  Kane,  on  a  draft  in  his  official  favor,  I  have 
to  say  that  none  of  the  drafts  came  under  my  notice.  I  do  not,  person- 
ally, do  all  the  business  that  is  transacted  in  this  office,  and,  necessarily, 
many  things  escape  my  observation;  but  it  is,  nevertheless,  very  certain 
that  the  endorsement  of  a  draft  drawn  in  favor  of  "  Colonel  H.  Stanton, 
assistant  quartermaster  general,"  by  H.  Stanton,  docs  not  pass  the  title  of 
that  draft  to  an  endorsee ;  and  therefore,  if  I  paid  the  draft  referred 
to,  I  did  a  very  silly  thing,  and  the  accounting  officers  had  no  right  to  credit 
me  with  the  payment.  Such  is  my  understanding  of  the  legal  rule.  Bat 
in  some  cases,  where  drafts  have  been  receipted  for  here,  by  responsible 
banks,  I  have,  from  my  repugnance  to  giving  trouble,  paid  the  drafts, 
though  not  strictly  "in  rule;"  but,  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Kane,  the  drafts 
came  here  when  great  distress  prevailed  in  reference  to  all  business  mat- 
ters. It  came  from  a  recently  suspended  bank  in  Baltimore  to  a  very  weak 
bank  here,  and  it  might  have  so  happened  that  the  Government  would  not 
get  what  it  supposed  it  had  for  such  draft,  and  the  responsibility  might 
have  fallen  back  upon  me. 

I  will  not  disguise  the  fact  that  I  have  no  respect  for  the  technicalities  of 
the  "  accounting  officers,"  and  no  confidence  in  the  obscure  and  worse  than 
ridiculous  system  of  keeping  accounts  in  the  Treasury  Department ;  and 
hence  I  have  been  in  a  constant  war  with  them,  which  I  do  not  see  any 
prospect  of  terminating  short  of  the  aid  of  the  "  bloodhounds." 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  B.  Randolph,  Esq., 

•Acting  Treasurer. 


Treasury  Department, 

February  26,  1840. 

Sir:  I  transmit,  herewith,  a  letter  signed  "  A  Democrat,"  complaining  of 
the  conduct  of  some  of  your  officers  in  reference  to  the  disposition  made 
of  the  goods  saved  from  the  public  store  recently  destroyed  by  fire  in  your 
port.  I  have  to  request  that  you  will  inquire  into  the  subject  complained 
of,  and  report  the  result  to  the  Department. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Rep.  No.  669.  369 

Custom-House,  New  York,  March  2,  1840. 

13ir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  26th  February,  enclosing  to  me  a  com- 
munication dated  the  24th  February,  and  signed  "  A  Democrat,"  in  rela- 
tion to  the  manner  of  selling  the  goods  saved  from  the  public  store,  26 L 
Front  street.    The  history  of  the  business  is  simply  this: 

The  morning  after  the  fire,  I  went  in  person,  attended  by  some  of  the 
best  officers  in  the  Department,  to  adopt  a  course  in  our  judgments  best 
•calculated  to  preserve  the  interest  of  all  parties  concerned.  The  under- 
writers were  very  shy  of  taking  any  responsibility  or  incurring  any  ex- 
pense in  the  matter,  and  the  owners  did  not  make  their  appearance.  I 
employed  a  few  engines  to  play  a  sufficient  quantity  of  water  on  the  ruins 
to  cool  them,  so  that  the  men  could  work,  and  I  detailed  a  sufficient  number 
of  officers  to  gather  from  the  ruins  all  that  could  be  saved. 

The  goods  were  in  such  a  condition  that  we  could  not  even  put  them  in 
any  store,  lest  some  fire  might  remain  in  them  sufficient  to  ignite  again, 
and  were  therefore  compelled  to  put  them  in  an  open  yard,  with  a  watch, 
over  them.  They  were  afterwards  put  in  piles  or  lots  in  the  yard,  and 
were  appraised  by  the  public  appraisers,  and  were  sold  at  auction  by  W. 
H.  L.  Van  Wyck,  one  of  our  most  respectable  auction  houses. 

They  were  sold  at  two  different  periods,  and  brought  about  the  apprais- 
ed value. 

The  principal  purchasers  were  Jews  and  pedlars;  some  got  very  good 
bargains,  I  have  no  doubt,  and  some  very  poor  ones.  All  the  lots  that 
were  sold  at  the  first  sale  were  not  called  for,  because  they  were  bid  off  at 
more  than  they  were  worth  ;  and  they  were  accordingly  resold,  and  brought 
a  less  sum. 

At  the  first  sale  there  was  some  little  complaint  that  the  people  had  not  a 
sufficient  opportunity  to  examine  the  goods;  and,  in  order  to  inform  my- 
self of  the  justice  of  the  complaint,  I  went  to  see  in  what  manner  the  lots 
were  made  up  for  the  second  sale,  and  to  inquire  how  it  was  done  at  the 
first,  and  I  am  entirely  satisfied  that  it  was  all  fair  ;  though,  at  the  second 
sale,  a  Mr.  Phillips,  one  of  the  "  Old  Testament"  people,  came  and  com- 
plained, when  I  ascertained  that  his  friend  had  hired  the  second  story  of 
the  house  on  the  opposite  side  of  the  yard,  where  the  goods  were,  and  con- 
stantly remained  there  with  spy  glass  in  their  hands,  to  see  the  manner  in 
which  the  men  selected  the  goods;  and  I  have  since  understood  that  he 
and  his  friend  offered  $20  to  one  of  the  inspectors  for  information  as  to  the 
manner  the  goods  were  assorted. 

I  called  upon  Mr.  Van  Wyck,  and  he  satisfied  me  the  complaint  was 
groundless.  Having  failed  in  that  effort,  we  are  inclined  to  suppose  that 
this  "  Democrat"  is  no  other  than  a  disappointed  speculator  by  the  name 
of  Phillips. 

On  the  receipt  of  your  letter,  I  addressed  Mr.  Van  Wyck  on  the  sub- 
ject. A  copy  of  my  note  to  him  I  send,  and  also  his  reply.  He  ought  to 
have  the  best  means  of  information  of  any  one  ^  and  his  testimony  on  the 
subject  I  refer  to  with  confidence. 

The  writer  who  has  addressed  you,  like  many  others  professing  the  same 
name,  is  not,  I  think,  what  he  represents  himself  to  be.  I  return  you  the 
letter. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


370 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  7,  1840. 

Sir:  In  the  case  of  Wood,  Johnson,  &  Burritt,  against  the  under- 
signed, the  question  is,  whether  twilled  sacking  is  an  article  used  for  cottom 
bagging,  and  therefore  subject  to  the  duty  of  3£  cents  the  square  yard.  It 
is  claimed  that  it  is  free,  as  an  unbleached  linen.  We  charge  the  duty  as 
above,  by  order  of  the  Department.  The  names  of  the  witnesses  handed 
to  me  by  Mr.  Mead  are  as  follows  :  W.  Cairns,  John  Townsend,  Stuart 
Mollan,  John  H.  Tallman,  Henry  Coit,  Kimberly,  and  T.  Phillips. 

Mr.  Mead  suggests,  however,  that  it  is  very  probable  they  will  be  against 
us  ;  and  that  we  had  better  trust  to  the  plaintiff's  witnesses  and  Messrs^ 
Cairns  and  Townsend. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector.. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


New  York,  June  20,  1840. 
My  Dear  Sir:  I  have  yours  of  yesterday.  I  am  disappointed  in  the* 
decision  of  Judge  Heath,  but  yet  1  think  we  can  beat  them  before  the  jury. 
You  will  have  seen  Wasson  before  now,  and  fixed  all  matters  with  him,, 
so  far  as  you  are  concerned.  I  could  not  get  the  copy  of  Bottomly's 
deposition  to-day,  and  therefore  it  will  remain  over  till  Monday. 

In  great  haste,  very  truly, 

J.  HOYT. 

John  Cadwalader,  Esq. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  July  2,  1840. 
Sir:  From  present  appearances,  I  should  judge  the  bill  for  the  better 
protection  of  the  revenue,  which  had  passed  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, will  pass  the  Senate,  and  probably  will  become  a  law.  In  this  bill 
provision  is  made  for  the  appointment  of  an  additional  principal  appraiser 
for  this  port. 

The  enclosed  application  of  Mr.  William  Cairns  has  been  left  with  me, 
"with  a  request  that  I  would  forward  it  to  you,  with  an  expression  of  my 
own  as  to  the  fitness  of  the  applicant  for  the  place. 

1  do  not  know  how  far  it  may  be  proper  for  me  to  interfere  in  the  ap- 
pointments of  persons  to  be  associated  with  me  in  the  performance  of 
duties  connected  with  this  department  ;  but  if  there  is  no  objection  on  this 
ground,  I  beg  to  say  that  I  do  not  think  a  better  or  more  judicious  selec- 
tion could  be  made. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT. 

To  the  President  of  the  United  States. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  29,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  have  a  controversy  with  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Treasury, 
in  relation  to  my  forfeiture  account,  which  ought  not  to  remain  as  it  does. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


371 


I  have  this  day  replied  to  the  last  adjustment  of  the  account,  and  the 
matter  is  within  so  small  a  compass,  that  I  feel  that  a  reasonable  effort  has 
not  been  made  to  arrive  at  the  legal  difficulties  that  seem  to  be  in  the  way 
of  a  right  understanding,  on  the  part  of  the  officers  of  the  Treasury.  The 
question  is,  whether  the  duties  on  goods  seized  form  a  part  of  the  forfeit- 
ure; and  that  question  is  mixed  up  with  the  true  construction  of  the  89th 
section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  in  relation  to  the  bonding  of  goods. 

It  is  held  by  the  First  Auditor,  and  confirmed  by  the  Comptroller,  that  it 
is  the  duty  of  the  appraisers  appointed  by  the  court,  under  that  section,  to 
appraise  goods  about  to  be  bonded,  at  the  value  here,  and  not  at  the  place 
of  exportation. 

I  have  submitted  various  arguments  on  the  point,  and  have  referred  to 
that  part  of  the  section  which  imposes  upon  the  collector  and  naval  officer 
the  duty  of  certifying  that  the  duties  had  been  paid  or  secured,  the  same 
as  though  the  goods  had  been  legally  entered,  which,  according  to  the  law 
as  it  now  is,  and  will  be  until  1S42,  makes  "goods  legally  entered/'  if  en- 
tered at  the  value  at  the  place  of  exportation. 

I  have  urged,  as  I  believe,  with  an  unanswerable  force,  that  the  rights 
of  the  revenue  officers  in  the  United  States  are  not  to  be  abridged  or  en- 
larged by  the  fact  of  the  goods  being  bonded,  which  they  would  be  if  the 
Government  took  the  duties,  and  then  a  "  moiety"  of  the  bond,  which  is 
given  for  the  appraised  value.  The  seizing  officers  having  the  possession 
of  the  goods,  and  if  not  bonded  would  receive  one-half  of  the  nett  proceeds 
of  the  sales  here,  which  would  include  value  abroad  and  duties  here. 

But  Judge  Betts  decided,  only  a  few  days  since,  that  the  value  which  the 
appraisers  must  fix  upon  the  goods  appraised  was  the  value  at  the  place 
of  exportation,  which  decision  must  receive  as  much  consideration  as  the 
decision  of  the  accounting  officers,  unless  they  can  refer  to  a  judicial  au- 
thority higher  or  as  high  as  that  of  Judge  Betts.  The  amount  now  under 
discussion  is  about  $1 1,500  ;  but  there  are  other  amounts  pending  upon  the 
same  question,  and  therefore  it  is  desirable,  for  many  reasons,  to  have  the 
principle  finally  settled. 

The  decision  of  the  Comptroller  in  matters  of  account,  I  am  informed,  is 
conclusive ;  but.  on  a  question  purely  one  of  a  legal  character,  it  seems  to- 
me there  must  be  some  right  of  appeal  to  some  tribunal  or  other. 

In  view  of  this,  I  beg  to  submit  these  remarks. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  7,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  return  you  the  calendar  for  September  term,  which  you  sent  me 
this  morning.  I  have  a  great  many  suggestions  to  make,  but  which  must 
be  done  verbally ;  but  I  would  now  remark,  that  Mr.  Cairns  is  obliged  to 
go  to  Baltimore  on  Saturday  next,  and  will  be  absent  several  days.  Some 
of  the  papers  we  shall  want  on  the  trial  of  Clifton  are  in  Baltimore,  and 
will  be  wanted  there ;  so  that  you  will  observe  that  this  cause,  as  well  as 


372  Rep.  No.  669. 

those  in  which  Mr.  Cairns  is  a  witness,  should  be  arranged  on  the  calendar 
•so  as  to  meet  these  contingencies. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


Treasury  Department,  September  14,  1840. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  12th  instant,  in  reference  to  the  furniture  required 
for  the  new  custom-house,  has  been  received. 

In  regard  to  the  room  assigned  for  the  accommodation  of  the  receiver 
general,  it  is  to  be  observed  that  he  has  already  been  authorized  to  pro- 
cure some  furniture  for  the  rooms  he  now  occupies  in  the  Bank  of  America, 
which  it  is  presumed  will  answer  for  his  new  quarters  ;  but  any  further 
■articles  of  the  kind  which  may  be  needed  he  can  procure,  on  first  advising 
the  Department  of  what  is  required,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  appropriation 
.contained  in  the  Independent  Treasury  act  of  the  4th  of  July  last.  The 
expense  of  the  vault,  or  any  other  permanent  fixture  placed  in  his  room, 
should  be  charged  to  the  appropriation  for  construction  of  the  custom-house 
building. 

With  respect  to  the  furniture  required  for  the  other  portions  of  the  build- 
ing, no  expense  can  be  incurred  without  a  special  appropriation  having 
first  been  made  by  Congress  for  the  purpose,  or  unless  the  officers  who 
occupy  the  rooms  should  think  proper  to  defray  such  expenses  out  of  their 
emoluments.  It  will,  in  any  other  event,  become  necessary  to  use  the  old 
furniture  now  in  the  custom-house.  The  appropriation  made  towards  the 
erection  of  the  building,  it  is  thought, could  not  legally  be  appropriated,  or 
any  any  portion  of  it,  (whilst  the  building  itself  is  unfinished,)  for  the 
object  mentioned. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq. 


CORRESPONDENCE  RELATING  TO  GOODS  DESTROYED  BY  FIRE. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  January  12,  1S41. 

Sir  :  A  derangement  of  the  mails  kept  back  your  letter  of  the  9th  until 
this  day.  The  copy  of  the  memorial  of  certain  merchants,  enclosed  in  it, 
is  before  me,  which  presents  two  propositions  : 

1st.  That  they  will  be  permitted  to  enter  the  goods  saved  from  the  fire 
^without  paying  duties  on  the  portion  destroyed. 

2d.  That  the  proceeds  of  the  goods  saved,  after  paying  duties,  be  divided 
among  the  owners  or  importers,  in  proportion  to  their  respective  claims. 

In  my  letter  of  the  28th  of  January,  I  stated  to  you  the  efforts  I  was 
making  to  ascertain  the  names  of  the  owners  of  the  goods  destroyed,  but 


Rep.  No.  669. 


373 


these  efforts  wholly  failed.  The  underwriters  have  managed  exceedingly 
adroitly  to  conceal  themselves ;  and  the  owners,  in  this  respect,  have  kept 
pace  with  them.  Some  of  the  goods  that  were  saved  were,  I  helieve,  sold 
to-day,  under  the  nine  months'  sale  ;  and  I  suppose  claims  will  hereafter  be 
interposed  for  the  surplus  on  bills  of  lading  endorsed  to  some  third 
party,  and  I  do  not  see  how  we  are  to  avoid  it.  You  are  probably  under 
the  impression,  from  the  tenor  of  the  memorial,  that  all  the  signers  had 
goods  at  261  Front  street;  but  this  cannot  be  so,  as  there  fire  names  of 
those  to  it  who  have  never  in  their  lives  imported  at  all ;  others  who  had 
goods  in  what  was  called  "  Smith's  large  store,"  which  adjoined  261.  The 
object  of  the  memorial,  I  think,  is  to  procure  a  law  to  return  the  duties  on 
all  the  goods  destroyed  by  that  fire,  though  such  is  not  its  special  prayer. 
The  great  bulk  of  the  goods  were  in  Smith's  store.  For  instance  :  Messrs. 
Grinnell,  Minturn,  &  Co.,  had.  a  large  quantity  of  olive  oil  in  that  store,  on 
which  duties  had  been  paid.  Messrs.  Goodhue  &  Co.,  I  believe,  had  a  large 
quantity  of  hemp, on  which  duties  had  also  been  paid  ;  and  the  same  thing 
with  many  others  whose  names  appear,  but  who  had  nothing  in  the  public 
store. 

Congress,  in  the  act  of  7th  July,  183S,  in  relation  to  the  great  fire,  recog- 
nised the  principle  of  returning  the  duties  on  goods  destroyed  by  fire ;  but 
that  was  an  extraordinary  case,  and  ought  not  to  form  a  precedent  for  other 
cases,  or  else  the  Government  would  stand  as  insurers.  Some  years  ago  a 
public  store  was  burnt  down  in  Washington  street ;  and,  if  the  first  propo- 
sition of  the  memorial  should  be  adopted,  there  would  be  no  reason  why  we 
should  not  return  duties  on  the  goods  that  were  burnt  in  the  Washington 
street  store,  if  there  were  any  in  the  store  that  had  paid  duties.  It  is  well 
settled,  that  duties  accrue  on  the  importation  ;  and  I  see  no  good  reason  for  a 
change  in  the  law  in  this  respect. 

The  present  instance  is  very  different  from  that  of  the  great  fire.  There 
was  a  calamity  that  swept  down  all  insurance  offices,  and  a  calamity  so 
appalling  in  its  effects  that  relief  seemed  to  be  called  for  ;  but,  in  an  ordinary 
case,  I  think  it  would  not  be  judicious  to  interfere  with  the  present  law. 
But  whether  we  shall  be  able  to  collect  any  of  the  duties  on  the  goods  burnt 
is  another  question.  I  understand  none  were  collected  on  the  goods  burnt 
in  the  Washington  street  store  ;  and,  in  the  present  case,  I  do  not  recognise 
a  single  name  on  the  memorial  whom  I  suspected  of  having  goods  in  the 
store  in  Front  street. 

The  second  proposition  in  the  memorial,  in  principle,  is  very  like  the 
first,  and  is  also  subject  to  other  objections,  some  of  which  occur  to  me  at 
this  moment,  and  which  I  will  briefly  state  : 

1st.  The  importers  who  claim  this  benefit  know  that  they  were  in  law 
liable  for  the  duties  on  the  importation  of  the  goods.  They  have  not  as 
yet  come  forward  and  avowed  themselves  as  owners,  and  paid,  or  offered 
to  pay,  a  debt  for  which  they  were  and  are  now  legally  liable  ;  and  there- 
fore they  do  not  precisely  place  themselves  in  a  condition  to  claim  a  favor 
at  the  hands  of  the  Government :  the  rule  being,  that  one  must  do  equity 
before  he  asks  it ;  and  it  would  have  been  but  equitable  to  h&ve  acknow- 
ledged ownership  before  this  time. 

2d.  Many  of  the  parties,  if  not  most  of  them,  were  insured,  and  collected 
the  insurance  ;  and  the  broad  grounds  of  the  proposition  would  inure  to  the 
benefit  of  underwriters,  whom  Congress  have  uniformly  refused  to  give  re- 
lief to. 


374 


Rep.  No.  669. 


3d.  Most  of  the  goods  being  consigned  to  order,  and  all  identity  of  marks, 
numbers,  &c,  being  destroyed,  it  would  be  quite  impossible  to  get  in  all 
owners,  if  the  proposition  should  be  adopted,  so  that  injustice  might  be  done- 
in  the  division,  if  the  principle  was  right. 

I  think,  however,  under  the  circumstances  of  this  case,  that  the  principle 
should  not  be  adopted. 

I  will  retain  the  copy  of  the  memorial  sent  me,  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
serving the  names. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  16,  1841. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  10th  instant,  in  relation  to  the  seizure  cases- 
that  are  to  go  to  Washington. 

I  have  been  put  to  vast  expense  in  the  trial  of  the  causes  at  Baltimore 
and  Philadelphia ;  and  we  have  therefore  made  up  our  minds  not  to  pay 
any  counsel  fee  attending  the  Supreme  Court. 

I  am  satisfied,  if  the  record  is  made  up  correctly,  that  we  must  succeed. 
The  experience  of  the  Attorney  General  in  cases  of  this  kind,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  his  general  ability,  will  enable  him  to  get  the  merits  of  the  cases  be- 
fore the  court,  which  is  all  that  can  be  required. 

If  you  will  have  the  goodness  to  send  me  a  copy  of  the  record  as  soon  as 
prepared  or  printed,  I  will  make  some  notes  for  the  Attorney  General,  which 
might  facilitate  him;  and  no  doubt  you  or  General  Howard  would  do  the 
same. 

Very  truly, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Nathaniel  Williams,  Esq  , 

United  States  Jlttorney ,  Baltimore. 


Treasury  Department,  February  1,  1841. 

Sir  :  Yours  of  the  27th  ultimo,  in  reply  to  my  inquiry  as  to  the  amount 
in  dispute  as  to  fees  and  emoluments,  has  been  received. 

I  shall  submit  it  to  the  Comptroller,  for  his  reply  and  explanations, 
and  then  take  the  President's  directions  in  the  matter,  of  which  you  will 
be  duly  informed. 

You  labor  under  a  mistake  in  supposing  that  I  have  made  any  decision' 
on  the  point  of  doubt,  since,  by  law,  I  have  no  power  over  the  settlement 
of  such  accounts  ;  nor  am  I  aware  that,  in  the  case  of  money  held  under 
protest,  to  which  you  allude,  or  in  any  other  instance,  I  have  made  any 
decision,  in  respect  to  your  business,  which  has  been  overruled  either  byr 
the  law  officers  or  Congress. 

But  if  I  have,  it  would  afford  me  great  pleasure  to  see  them  reverse- 
any  decision  which  appeared  to  be  wrong,  and  to  allow  you  every  thing, 
which  the  law  may  seem  to  require. 


Rep.  No.  639. 


375 


I  am  more  anxious  to  do  justice  to  the  public  interests,  mnd  to  avoid 
difficulty  and  injustice,  than  to  jorm  any  character  for  infallibility,  or  a 
near  approach  to  it,  in  either  my  opinions  or  acts,  which,  being  often, 
necessarily  hasty,  must  at  times  be  erroneous,  however  well  intended. 

I  claim,  too,  no  special  merit  for  such  a  course,  as  I  believe  that  other 
persons,  generally,  and  yourself  in  particular,  are  actuated  by  similar 
motives. 

Respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  17,1841. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  12th  instant,  enclosing  an  article  from 
the  New  York  Herald,  in  regard  to,  an  alleged  robbing  of  one  of  the  public 
stores  of  this  city,  I  have  lo  state  that,  on  the  2d  of  January  last,  I  re- 
ceived a  report  from  two  of  the  night  watch,  of  which  the  following  is  a 
copy  : 

January  2,  1841. 

Half-past  six  o'clock,  trying  locks  of  store  274  Front  street ;  heard  a  noise 
inside,  and  saw  a  person  coming  out  of  side  door ;  and,  seizing  him,  found 
on  him  a  dark  lantern,  a  chisel,  and  piece  of  iron,  and  then  brought  him 
up  to  the  corner  store,  and  went  for  officer  Parker,  a  few  doors  below,  and 
left  the  man  in  charge  of  my  partner  ;  but  he  slipped  out  of  his  hands,  and 
went  into  a  side  door  leading  into  the  next  store  ;  and  a  person  in  the  store 
said  we  should  not  search  it.  We  found  one  box  of  cloth  broken  open,  in 
third  story.  Officer  Parker  came,  and  we  searched  the  store,  but  could  find 
nothing  of  him.  The  thief  must  have  been  locked  up  in  the  store,  as  no  locks 
are  broken. 

ROBERT  O'DONNELL. 
JOHN  HENRATTY. 

On  the  receipt  of  this  report,  I  directed  the  storekeeper  of  the  port  to  make 
an  immediate  investigation.  We  had  not  heard  of  the  loss  of  any  goods, 
except  one  piece  of  cloth  from  230  Cherry  street ;  and  we  doubted  whether 
the  loss  did  not,  in  fact,  occur  before  the  package  reached  the  public  store. 
Such  is  the  opinion  of  the  storekeeper,  as  you  will  gather  from  the  letter  to 
me;  a -copy  I  send  herewith. 

A  storehouse  kept  by  Mr.  Merle,  in  the  neighborhood  of  270  Water 
street,  had  been  robbed  of  some  coffee  and  other  articles ;  and  he,  in  con- 
junction with  me,  put  the  matter  into  the  hands  of  the  police  to  investigate, 
and  to  arrest  such  persons  as  should  be  suspected.  I  had  a  private  inter- 
view with  two  of  the  police  officers,  when  I  stated  to  them  I  had  not  lost 
any  goods  of  any  moment ;  to  which  they  replied,  that  they  were  satisfied 
that  robberies  had  been  committed,  much  more  extensively  than  I  had  any 
idea  of.  I  then  offered  them  a  reward  if  they  would  find  the  goods,  or  ar- 
rest and  convict  the  offenders.  Some  arrests  were  made,  but  no  goods 
found.  Among  others  arrested  were  two  colored  persons,  one  of  whom  was 
a  porter  in  the  store  274  Front  street,  and  the  other  a  man  occasionally  em- 
ployed as  a  laborer  in  the  latter  store.    They  were  arrested  on  a  charge 


376 


Rep.  No.  669. 


preferred  by  the  person  whom  the  night  watch  found  in  the  store  274  From 
street.  They  are  still  in  prison,  but  have  not  been  examined.  All  tht 
officers  connected  with  the  particular  charge  of  the  stores  referred  to,  a* 
well  as  the  principal  storekeeper  of  the  port,  believe  in  the  innocence 
of  the  two  colored  persons  referred  to.  From  the  representation  made  tc 
me  by  these  officers,  I  am  of  the  same  opinion.  I  send  you  copy  of  z 
letter  from  the  officers  having  charge  of  ti  e  Front  and  Water  street  stores 
by  which  you  will  see,  as  I  have  stated,  that  they  express  an  opinion 
favorable  to  the  integrity  of  the  colored  persons  arrested.  The  storekeepei 
of  the  port  is  confined  to  his  house  by  indisposition,  and  I  therefore  cannot 
get  a  report  from  him.  I  have  had  no  conversation  with  any  committee 
or  other  persons  on  this  subject,  but  my  own  officers  and  the  police  officers. 
One  of  the  latter  officers  I  saw  to-day,  and  he  could  give  me  no  information 
other  than  that  derived  from  the  declarations  of  the  man  caught  by  the  night 
watch  ;  and,  in  the  absence  of  the  loss  of  any  goods  of  any  moment,  and 
the  loss  of  those,  even,  not  satisfactorily  fixed  as  happening  when  the  goods 
were  in  our  custody,  I  should  be  slow  to  believe  the  accusation,  especially 
as  it  comes  from  the  man  who  has  been  promised  legal  absolution  from  his 
crimes  if  he  would  implicate  others. 

Notwithstanding  the  opinion  I  at  present  entertain,  1  shall  leave  no  ef- 
fort untried  to  get  at  the  truth  of  the  matter. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February,  22,  184k 
Sir:  On  the  27th  of  January  last,  you  called  my  attention  to  a  corres- 
pondence that  had  been  going  on  between  the  Comptroller  and  myself  irtJ 
relation  to  certain  disputed  items  in  my  account,  and  more  especially  to> 
what  is  called  the  emolument  account ;  and  you  asked  whether  I  had  de- 
posited, as  required  by  the  Comptroller,  the  sum  claimed  by  him  to  belong 
to  the  United  States,  but  which  I  insisted  belonged  to  me,  with  the  receiver 
general ;  and,  if  not  so  deposited,  that  I  should  state  the  reasons  for  omitting 
to  do  it. 

On  the  29th  of  that  month  I  stated  to  you  that  I  had  not  made  that  de- 
posits, and  I  assigned  at  length  my  reasons  for  omitting  to  do  so  ;  and 
among  these  reasons  I  forwarded  to  you  a  copy  of  a  letter  I  addressed  to] 
the  Comptroller  on  the  30th  of  December  last,  which,  to  my  mind,  was 
conclusive  of  the  correctness  of  the  position  I  had  assumed,  and  which  lat- 
ter letter  it  was  apparent,  from  your  communication,  had  not  been  seen  by  i 
you. 

On  the  1st  of  February  you  admitted  the  receipt  of  the  29th  of  January,, 
when  you  stated  that  you  "  should  submit  it  to  the  Comptroller,  for  his  re- 
ply and  explanations,  and  then  take  the  President's  directions  iu  the  maU 
ter,  of  which  you  (I)  would  be  duly  informed.' ' 

You  also  stated,  in  the  same  letter,  that  yon  were  "more  anxious  to  do 
justice  to  the  public  interests,  and  to  avoid  difficulty  and  injustice,  than 
to  form  any  character  for  infallibility,  or  a  near  approach  to  it,  in  either 


Kep.  No.  669. 


377 


my  (your)  opinion  or  acts,  which  being  often  necessarily  hasty,  must  at 
times  be  erroneous,  however  well  intended." 

I  had  a  right,  as  I  supposed,  from  this  communication,  to  expect  the 
"reply  and  explanations  of  the  Comptroller  would  have  been  conveyed  to 
me  in  the  ordinary  manner,  with  the  result  of  your  own  judgment,  formed 
without  the  "  necessary  haste"  with  which  you  are  at  times  "  compelled  to 
act;"  but,  instead  of  realizing  what  I  cannot  but  believe  were  my  just  ex- 
pectations, I  was  informed  of  the  "reply  and  explanations"  of  the  Comp- 
troller on  the  20th  instant,  through  the  offices  of  the  district  attorney  and 
marshal,  and  not  in  the  manner  you  indicated  to  me  that  I  should  be  in- 
formed. In  other  words,  you  directed  a  suit  to  be  commenced  against  me 
and  my  sureties,  to  recover  the  amount  of  the  disputed  items.  Some  of  the 
amounts  had  been  disbursed  under  the  authority  of  your  own  letters,  and 
others  under  the  decisions  of  the  accounting  officers  of  the  Department. 

This  proceeding  has  created  such  a  change  in  my  relations  to  the  De- 
partment, and  is  likely  to  be  so  injurious  to  me,  that  I  think  it  due  to  my- 
self to  resign  the  office  I  hold. 

I  will  communicate  that  resignation  to  the  President  by  this  day's  mail,, 
with  a  copy  of  this  letter. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Hep.  ATo,  669. 


379 


APPENDIX4. 


PART  1L 


CORRESPONDENCE  OF  COLLECTOR,  LAW  OFFICERS,  SECRETARY  OF  THE 
TREASURY,  AND  MISCELLANEOUS. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  April  5,  1S38. 
Sir  :  Colonel  Ogden,  the  assistant  collector  of  this  port,  residing  at  Jersey 
City,  called  at  this  office  to-day,  and  stated  the  necessity  of  being  provided 
with  a  barge,  for  the  purpose  of  boarding  vessels  that  drop  in  occasionally 
near  the  Jersey  shore.  He  thinks  there  is  a  species  of  craft  that  are  engag- 
ed in  an  improper  manner,  to  the  prejudice  of  the  revenue,  and  which  can- 
not be  detected  without  the  facility  of  a  boat.  I  am  of  opinion  that  a  boat 
should  be  furnished  with  the  leiefet  possible  delay.  It  is  not  proposed  to  have 
a  permanent  set  of  bargemen,  but  to  employ  men  for  the  especial  occasion, 
and  as  often  as  required.  Colonel  Ogden  also  suggests  that  he  should  be 
furnished  with  a  secret  inspector,  whose  name  should  not  be  placed  upon 
the  books  of  the  Treasury,  but  known  only  to  him  and  myself.  If  you 
should  approve  of  it,  I  will  adopt  the  course,  from  a  conviction  of  its  utility. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  April  10,  1838. 
Sir  :  In  reference  to  the  suggestions  alluded  to  in  your  letter  of  the  5th 
instant,  made  by  the  assistant  collector,  residing  in  Jersey  City,  to  be  allow- 
ed a  boat  and  a  secret  inspector  of  the  customs,  I  have  to  state,  that  it  is  not 
deemed  expedient  at  this  time  to  incur  the  expense  incident  to  the  adop- 
tion of  Colonel  Ogden's  suggestions,  unless  it  should  clearly  appear  that  the 
interests  of  the  revenue  require  it,  and  the  case  is  urgent. 

I  am.  sir,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  7,  1S3S. 
Sir  :  My  attention  has  been  called  by  my  predecessor  in  office  to  the 
condition  of  the  custom-house,  in  regard  to  its  monetary  affairs. 

It  is  said  to  be  very  doubtful  whether  the  bill  fixing  the  compensation  of 
the  officers  of  the  customs  will  be  passed  the  present  session  of  Congress. 
It  is  therefore  very  important  that  some  appropriation  should  be  made  for 
their  compensation  for  the  present  vear, 
13* 


380 


Rep. -No.  669. 


The  general  appropriation  act  for  the  civil  and  diplomatic  expenses  of 
the  Government  has,  for  several  years  past,  contained  provision  for  the 
payment  of  the  officers  of  the  customs.  But  the  bill  of  the  present  year,  1 
understand,  contains  no  provision  for  the  payment  of  the  officers  of  the  cus- 
toms. It  is,  by  our  last  accounts,  yet  before  the  Senate.  I  would  most 
respectfully  suggest  that  it  should  be  so  amended  as  to  embrace  the  object 
referred  to.  Should  this  bill  become  a  law  without  containing-  provision 
for  the  payment  of  the  officers  of  the  customs,  and  no  other  oncibe  passed 
for  their  benefit,  it  will  place  many  of  these  men  in  sad  distress. 

I  have  thought  it,  proper  to  bring  the  subject  to  your  mind,  which  the  va- 
rious and  arduous  duties  of  your  office  might  otherwise  cause  you  to  over-  , 
look,  and  in  order  that  no  disappointment  may  result  to  those  who  would 
most  sensibly  feel  the  loss. 

1  am,  sir,  &c. 

'      J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House^New  York,  April  IS,  1838. 
Gentlemen  :  The  loss  of  so  many  papers  that  belong  to  the  files  of  this 
office  requires  that  a  new  system  should  be  adopted  in  relation  to  them. 
After  the  entry  of  goods  in  this  office,  the  original  invoice  becomes  a  paper 
belonging  to  the  files  of  the  office  ;  it  is,  however,  intrusted  to  the  importer 
to  take  to  the  naval  office  when  it  is  ready  for  your  department,  and.  should 
forthwith  be  deposited  there.  When  it  is  so  deposited,  I  consider  it,  in  ef- 
fect, in  the  custody  of  the  collector  ;  and  therefore  I  desire  that  you  will 
not  hereafter  part  with  any  such  invoice,  but  will,  as  soon  as  you  are  done 
with  it,  cause  it  to  be  sent  by  one  of  your  clerks  or  messengers  to  this  office* 
where  it  in  fact  belongs. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

To  the  Principal  Appraisers 

cf  the  Port  of  New  York. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  Jipril  18,  1838. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  21st  March,  directing  me  to  inquire  whether,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  depressed  slate  of  commerce,  a  number  of  the  officers  at- 
tached to  this  department  could  not  be  dispensed  with,  has  received  my 
anxious  consideration,  and  I  am  of  opinion  that  we  are  in  want  of  all  the 
effective  force  now  under  the  control  of  the  collector  of  this  port.  The 
"  depression/'  I  apprehend,  is  not  as  great  as  has  been  represented  by  a 
portion  of  our  fellow-citizens,  who  had  oYvjects  to  accomplish  other  than 
consulting  the  business  interests  of  the  community.  We  have,  it  is  to  be 
admitted, about  a  dozen  inspectors  of  the  customs  at  this  port,  who  render 
but  little  service  now.  and  receive  full  pay.  They  have  rendered  services 
her*  tofore,  for  which  I  think  there  is  a  sn  ail  balance  due  them.  I  cannot 
consent  to  lake  the  responsibility  ofleavirg  them  out  of  the  list  of  appoint- 


Hep.  No.'  669.  381 


merits  which  T  intend  to  send  for  approval  in  a  few  days  ;  but  if  you  direct 
them  to  be  left  off,  I  shall,  of  course,  obey  your  instructions.  I  allude  to 
those  who  performed  valuable  revolutionary  services,  not  "  bloodless."  I 
have  been  compelled,  upon  the  request  of  the  auditor,  to  furnish  four  addi- 
tional clerks  in  his  department,  the  necessity  of  which  grows  out  of  the 
labor  it  requires  to  cancel  and  record  the  Treasury  notes  we  are  daily  in  the 
receipt  of,  and  to  make  out  the  papers  and  entries  for  a  return  of  duties  on 
gloves,  silk  goods,  &c. 

I  desire,  also,  to  appoint  two  additional  clerks  in  the  room  I  especially 
superintend.  I  have  good  reason  to  believe  that  invoices,  made  out  abroad, 
are  very  often  erroneous  in  extensions  and  additions,  which  makes  a  mate- 
rial difference  in  the  amount  of  duties  to  be  charged.  It  is  impossible  for 
the  entry  clerks  proper  to  attend  to  the  examinations  in  this  particular,  and: 
I  am  advised  it  will  require  at  least  two  additional  clerks  for  this  service, 
I  have  no  doubt  of  the  importance  of  the  object,  but  I  am  unwilling  to  in- 
cur the  expense,  under  the  present  system  of  making  provision  for  paying 
the  expenses  of  the  establishment  under  my  charge.  I  had  the  honor  to 
address  you  on  the  subject  some  days  since,  and  your  reply  I  have,  and  I 
now  ask  for  your  advice  in  the  matter.  When  coming  into  this  office,  I 
was  not  satisfied  with  the  form  and  manner  in  which  the  business  was  con- 
ducted, and  I  have  attempted  some  reforms,  which  it  is  my  purpose  to 
carry  out,  and  the  result  of  which  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  will  greatly  ex- 
ceed any  additional  expense  of  clerk  hire  that  I  shall  incur  ;  and  it  may  turn; 
out  that  I  shall  stand  in  need  of  more  assistance  than  I  have  already  ad- 
verted to,  in  the  shape  of  additional  clerks.  You  will  perceive  by  the  news- 
papers that  there  are  a  good  many  goods  coming  in,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that 
we  shall  have  a  flourishing  falPs  business  ;  and  I  should  wish,  so  far  as  this 
office  is  concerned,  to  be  prepared  to  do  it  with  promptness  and  correctness, 
but  which  cannot  be  done  without  competent  aid. 

I  am,  sir,  &c.  * 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  20, 1838. 

Sir  :  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  offices  of  weigher,  gaugerv 
measurer,  marker,  and  inspector  of  the  customs  of  this  port,  by  operation  of 
law,  became  vacant  on  the  expiration  of  the  commission  of  the  late  collector, 
In  this  opinion  lam  confirmed  by  Mr.  Price,  the  district  attorney. 

Since  I  came  into  office,  I  have  devoted  all  the  time  I  could  command 
from  its  pressing  business  to  an  investigation  of  the  character  and  fitness  of 
the  various  applicants  for  appointment,  and  it  was  not  until  this  moment 
that  I  could  complete  the  list,  which  I  herewith  transmit,  for  your  approval, 
I  do  not  propose  to  reduce  the  number  I  found  in  office  when  I  took  pos- 
session, for  the  reasons  assigned  in  the  communication  I  had  the  honor  to 
address  you  on  the  18th  instant. 

May  i  solicit  as  early  action  on  this  subject  as  may  be  consistent  with  other 
c  laims  upon  your  attention  ? 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  1 


382 


Rep.  Mo.  669. 


Treasury  Department,  April  20,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  1 8th  instant,  in  regard  to  your 
subordinate  officers. 

I  should  like  to  be  informed  whether  you  cannot  employ  some  of  the  most 
inefficient  inspectors  in  the  capacity  of  clerks. 

It  may  be  proper  to  suggest  that  the  Department  does  not  construe  the 
law  as  requiring  new  nominations  of  old  officers,  after  a  change  of  col- 
lector ;  but  it  holds  that  those  officers  continue  until  others  are  appointed 
in  their  stead.  It  further  holds  that  the  collector  is  able,  and  ought  to  make 
new  nominations,  in  the  place  of  the  old  ones,  where  he  thinks  the  public 
interest  requires  it.  In  such  case,  however,  the  collector  must,  according 
to  the  circular  of  the  20th  of  July,  1S29,  submit  his  reasons  for  the  change, 
though  they  be  assigned  confidentially,  or  in  person,  or  otherwise,  as  may 
"be  most  convenient  and  agreeable. 

I  am,  respectfully,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  tfie  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  22,  1838. 
Sir:  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  communication  of  the  20th  instant,  in  which 
you  desire  to' be  informed  whether  I  cannot  employ  some  of  the  inefficient 
inspectors  in  the  capacity  of  clerks. 

I  am  not  at  present  prepared  to  answer  that  question,  but  will  give  it 
hereafter  my  attention.    There  are  already  in  the  Department  several 
-very  old  gentlemen,  acting  as  clerks,  and  who  get  through  with  the  duties 
assigned  them,  as  I  am  informed  by  the  auditor,  in  whose  room  they  are, 
■with  reasonable  accuracy  and  despatch;  but  such  men  are  wholly  unfit  for 
the  active  business  which  falls  more  immediately  under  my  supervision. 
An  occurrence  which  I  have  been  privately  investigating,  and  brought  to 
a  point  yesterday,  satisfies  me  of  this.    I  have  entertained  a  suspicion  for 
several  days  that  very  fraudulent  transactions  had  taken  place  in  the  cus- 
tom-house here,  by  collusion  with  officers  in  the  department.    I  satisfied 
myself  of  the  fact  yesterday  afternoon,  when  I  ordered  a  seizure  of  twelve 
packages  of  woollens  to  be  made  ;  and  to-morrow  I  shall  have  a  thorough 
investigation  as  to  the  number  of  persons  implicated,  who  belong  now  to 
the  office:  and,  as  the  result  shall  appear,  it  will  be  my  duty  to  make  re- 
movals accordingly.    I  have  a  confirmed  belief  that  the  Government;  has, 
in  the  last  few  years,  been  defrauded  to  a  large  extent;  and  the  fair  mer- 
chants been  prejudiced  in  the  like  proportion.    It  is  my  design  to  correct 
this  abuse. 

Your  communication  goes  on  to  state — 

1.  "That  the  Department  does  not  construe  the  law  as  requiring  new 
nominations  of  old  officers  after  a  change  of  collector." 

2.  "That  it  (the  Department)  holds  that  these  . officers  continue  until 
others  arc  appointed  in  their  stead." 

3.  "That  the  collector  is  able,  and  ought  to  make  new  nominations,  in 
the  places  of  the  old  ones,  when  he  thinks  the  public  interests  require  it." 

4.  That  "in  such  case,  however,  the  collector  must,  according  to  the  cir- 
cular of  the  20th  of  July,  1S29,  submit  his  reasons  for  the  change,  though 


Rep.  No.  669. 


383 


they  be  assigned  confidentially,  or  in  person,  or  otherwise,  as  may  be  most 
convenient  and  agreeable.'-* 

In  relation  to  these  matters,  you  will  have  found,  by  my  communication 
of  the  20th  instant,  that  I  construe  the  law  as  it  has  been  construed  by  the 
circuit  court  of  the  United  States,  in  the  New  Hampshire  district,  and  by 
a  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  July,  1837,  (if  I  recollect  the 
date  right,)  and  by  the  same  committee  a  few  days  since,  by  the  introduction 
of  a  bill  to  render  it  unnecessary,  upon  a  new  collector  coming  into  office,  to 
renew  the  appointments.  In  addition  to  this,  I  submitted  the  question,  as 
you  will  perceive  by  my  letter  just  referred  to,  to  Mr.  Price,  the  district 
attorney,  who  agreed  with  me  in  opinion.  I  most  respectfully,  therefore, 
submit,  whether  all  this  does  not  justify  the  course  I  have  taken  in  relation 
to  the  appointments  I  forwarded  for  your  approval. 

I  have  no  confidential  communications  to  make  to  the  Department  on 
the  subject.  It  is  my  purpose  to  discharge  my  official  duties  as  publicly 
as  I  shall  do  it  fearlessly.  I  have  not  seen  the  circular  of  the  20th  of  July, 
1S29,  and  it  would  not  apply  to  the  case,  as  I  have  construed  the  law. 
do  not  consider  that  I  make  any  "change,"  and  therefore  I  did  not  send 
you  a  list  of  the  old  officers  whom  I  nominated;  but  I  will  state  the  general 
grounds  upon  which  I  made  the  selection  of  the  names  I  forwarded. 

1.  That  the  revolutionary  men  I  found  in  office  I  renominated,  for  the 
reasons  that  they  were  capable  of  performing  a  certain  kind  of  service, 
though  not  a  full  one;  and  that  it  would  be  considered  unjust  to  with- 
hold from  them  the  small  pittance  necessary  for  their  support  in  their  old 
age. 

In  all  other  cases,  I  believed  the  persons  renominated  "honest,  capable, 
and  friendly  to  the  Constitution.'7 

I  have  taken  the  same  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  and  the  laws 
that  my  superiors  have  taken ;  and  if  the  Department  will  not  allow  me 
to  select  the  persons  to  aid  in  the  execution  of  those  laws  which  I  am 
especially  charged  to  see  executed,  without  a  formality  that  implies  a 
want  of  sense  or  integrity,  I  cannot  consent  to  undertake  the  execution  of 
them.  If  there  is  any  other  law  for  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  call 
upon  the  collector  for  reasons  in  such  a  case,  than  there  is  in  the  Senate  to 
call  on  the  President  under  like  circumstances,  I  have  not  been  able  to 
find  it,  and  I  would  be  greatly  obliged  for  the  reference. 

Respectfully  vours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

N.  B.  A  Liverpool  packet,  arrived  to-day,  brought  a  million  of  specie. 

J.  H.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  April  23,  1838. 

Sir  :  The  investigation  referred  to  in  my  letter  of  yesterday  resulted  in 
the  resignation  of  my  principal  deputy  last  night. 

I  have  a  statement,  in  writing,  taken  in  the  presence  of  the  district  at- 
torney. In  consideration  of  making  the  disclosures,  the  collector  and  district 
attorney  gave  their  personal  and  official  pledge  that  no  prosecution  should 


384  Kep.  No.  669. 

be  instituted  against  the  party  disclosing.  The  disclosure  led  also  to  the 
dismissal  of  a  clerk  s  in  the  naval  office.  I  directed  a  seizure  of  fifteen 
packages  of  woollens  in  the  public  stores,  and  also  a  large  number  of 
pieces  in  the  store  of  the  importer.  I  also  directed  a  prosecution  to  be  in- 
stituted against  him,  under  the  statute  for  bribery  on  officers  of  the  customs. 
As  all  the  most  important  entries  have  been  abstracted  from  this  office,  we 
may  have  some  difficulty  in  proceeding  under  the  act  for  making  the  false 
entry.  I  have  stated  the  whole  case  to  the  district  attorney,  with  general 
directions  to  take  all  measures  to  bring  the  offender  to  justice. 

Respectfully,  &c 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  April  23,  1838. 
^  Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant, 
enclosing  a  list  of  subordinate  officers  for  confirmation. 

I  have  to  inform  you,  in  reply,  that  it  is  not  necessary,  according  to  the 
usage  of  the  Department,  (as  advised  in  my  letter  of  the  20th  instant,)  to 
nominate  the  old  officers  intended  to  be  continued  in  the  service,  but  only 
the  new  appointments. 

As  to  the  new  ones  proposed,  I  want  further  explanation,  confidential 
or  otherwise,  required  by  the  same  usage,  and  a  statement  of  the' names 
of  those  in  whose  stead  the  new  ones  are  appointed. 

The  list  is  herewith  returned,  in  order  that  the  names  of  the  old  officers 
proposed  to  be  removed  may  be  placed  opposite  to  those  recommended  in 
their  places. 

All  the  old  ones  renominated  are  of  course  approved  to  be  retained. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  23,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  report  of  Inspector  Fitch,  of  goods  seized  in  the 
store  of  C.  W.  Dayton.  Will  you  be  so  good  as  to  institute  proceedings  to 
forfeit  the  same  to  the  United  States? 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  23,  1838. 
Sir:  I  enclose  you  a  schedule  of  packages  of  goods  now  in  the  public 
store  at  No.  17  Nassau  street,  to  the  number  of  fifteen,  which  I  wish  you 


Eep.  No.  669. 


385 


to  proceed  against  with  all  despatch,  as  forfeited  to  the  United  States-;  the 
same  were  imported  by  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  whose  store  is  at  No.  97 
Pearl  street.  The  goods  were  entered  at  the  custom-house,  of  the  vakie 
of  j6904  17«s.  Id.,  and  the  entry  made  30th  March  last,  and  were  imported  in 
ship  Briscoe,  as  we  suppose  ;  but  as  the  entry  has  been  abstracted  from 
this  office,  as  well  as  the  naval  office,  we  are  without  accurate  knowledge 
on  the  subject,  but  it  appears  from  the  appraisers'  books  that  the  gross  in- 
voice was  the  amount  last  stated. 

The  duties  have  not  been  paid.  The  appraised  value,  as  you  will  see 
by  the  enclosed,  is  £  1,403  14s.  6d. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  23,  1838. 
Sir  :  You  was  present  when  a  disclosure  was  made  to  me,  last  evening, 
touching  some  fraudulent  transactions  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  at  the  cus- 
tom-house.   I  wish  you  to  take  all  legal  measures  to  bring  the  offender  to 
justice. 

I  have  caused  to  be  seized  a  quantity  of  cloths  in  his  store  at  97  Pearl 
street,  and  which  have  have  been  received  at  the  public  store,  a  particular 
account  of  which  I  will  send  you  hereafter. 

I  desire  proceedings  to  be  instituted  to  forfeit  these  goods. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  25,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  send  you,  herewith,  a  schedule  of  the  goods  taken  from  the  store 
of  C.  W.  Dayton  this  day.  Will  you  be  so  good  as  to  institute  proceedings 
to  forfeit  the  same  to  the  United  States  ? 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  25,  1833. 
Sir:  Mr.  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  recently  a  large  importer  of  woollen 
goods  in  this  city,  fled  the  city  yesterday,  and  he  may  be  with  you.  His 
agents  may  be  ascertained  by  inquiry  of  Crosdale,  Hazlehurst,  &Co.,  cor- 
.  ner  of  Chestnut  and  First  streets. 


386 


Rep.  No.  669. 


His  packages  were  marked  B,  and  numbered  from  830  to  1,300,  and: 
contained  cloths  and  cassimeres. 

I  wish  a  trusty  officer  to  be  employed  to  make  the  examination,  and  if 
any  goods  are  found  to  answer  the  description,  I  wish  measures  taken  to- 
forfeit  them  to  the  United  States. 

'  Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  25,  1838. 

Sir  :  Mr.  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  a  large  importer  of  woollens,  late  of  this 
city,  has  been  practising  extensive  frauds  on  the  revenue  of  this  city,  as 
we  have  every  reason  to  believe. 

He  is  supposed  to  have  fled  the  city,  and  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  he 
was  with  you.  Mr.  Hoffman,  the  auctioneer,  and  William  Taylor  &  Co.? 
of  your  city,  are  his  agents,  and  it  is  supposed  he  has  a  large  amount  of 
goods  in  their  hands. 

The  packages  are  marked  B,and  numbered  from  830  to  1,300.  I  wish 
you  to  employ  some  trusty  officer  to  make  an  examination  into  the  premi- 
ses ;  and  if  you  find  any  thing  that  looks  suspicious,  I  desire  you  to  take- 
measures  to  forfeit  the  goods.    They  are  cloths  and  cassimeres. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

Nathaniel  Williams,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


Treasury  Department,  April  25,  1838. 

Sir  :  Yours  of  the  22d  has  been  received.  In  regard  to  the  subject  of 
clerks,  I  will  be  happy  to  communicate  further,  after  you  have  made  fuller 
and  satisfactory  inquiries  as  to  the  less  active  inspectors. 

On  the  subject  of  the  supposed  fraud  in  the  collection  of  the  revenue,  I 
am  happy  that  your  vigilance  has  been  crowned  with  success.  The  ut- 
most aid  in  my  power  will  be  cheerfully  afforded  to  detect  and  punish,  in. 
an  exemplary  manner,  any  designed  violations  of  the  laws. 

With  respect  to  your  nominations,  it  will  be  seen  that  all  reappointments 
of  former  officers,  though  it  is  not  considered  necessary  to  renominate  them, 
have  been  confirmed.  The  decision  in  Wood's  case,  to  which  you  refer, 
did  not  accord  with  the  practice  of  this  Department,  either  before  or  since 
1820;  but  some  doubt  having  arisen  whether  that  decision,  though  made 
in  the  circuit,  and  not  carried  to  the  Supreme  Court,  ought  not  to  govern 
the  practice,  one  of  my  predecessors,  in  1S31,  took  the  opinion  of  the 
Attorney  General  on  that  point ;  the  latter  advised  and  showed  very  clear- 
ly that  the  decision  was  erroneous.  Hence,  from  1799  till  now,  the  prac- 
tice has  been  to  hold  that  the  subordinates  remain  in  office  till  formally 
removed  by  the  collector,  with  the  approbation  of  this  Department. 

The  Committee  on  Commerce  reported  the  bill  to  which  you  refer  a  few 


Eep.  No.  669. 


387 


days  ago,  merely  with  a  view,  on  my  suggestion,  to  remove  all  doubts  of 
the  correctness  of  this  construction — as  a  different  one,  adopted  now,  and 
without  new  legislation  guarding  against  such  a  result,  would  not  only- 
change  the  usages  of  a  third  of  a  century,  but  render  void  all  the  acts  of 
your  own  subordinates  since  the  29th  of  March^and  of  most  others  in  the 
United  States  for  many  years. 

The  other  point  you  mention  as  questionable,  whether  a  collector  is 
bound  to  assign  reasons  for  his  proposed  removals,  has  never,  to  my  know- 
ledge, been  considered  by  any  Attorney  General.  Our  records  having  been 
mostly  destroyed,  I  cannot  trace  the  origin  of  the  practice  to  require  such, 
reasons;  but  a  circular,  in  1829,  before  mentioned  in  a  former  letter,  di- 
rected them  to  be  given,  and  it  has  never  since  been  modified  or  repealed. 
A  copy  of  it  is  enclosed  for  your  information,  though  it  was  sent  at  the 
time  to  New  York  and  all  the  principal  ports  in  the  United  States,  and 
has  since  been  complied  with  generally,  and  in  particular  whenever  the 
changes  proposed  were  numerous,  objected  to,  or  from  any  cause  peculiar. 

The  Department  has,  however,  felt  disposed  to  leave  all  the  responsibilty 
for  removals  on  the  collectors  which  it  could,  and  at  the  same  time  enforce 
duly  the  duty  of  supervision.  But  it  may  be  that  such  duty  does  not,  by 
law,  belong  to  it,  in  respect  to  the  removals,  and  that,  as  you  suggest,  it  is 
confined  to  the  new  appointments,  in  place  of  those  removed.  It  would 
be  very  gratifying  to  the  Department  to  find  that  the  present  laws  ought  to- 
be  so  construed,  or,  if  not,  that  Congress  is  willing  to  alter  them. 

Consequently,  I  will  at  once  take  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General 
on  this  question,  and,  if  he  should  hold  that  the  Department  is  relieved 
from  any  responsibility  as  to  the  removals,  will  be  happy  to  dispense  with 
any  inquiry,  in  any  form,  confidential  or  otherwise,  into  the  reasons  for 
them,  and  then  proceed  to  act  on  the  new  nominations.  Soon  as  his  reply 
is  received,  I  will  communicate  with  you  further;  and  in  the  mean  time 
remain,  respectfully,  yours, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  §c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April r  26,  1S38. 
Gentlemen  :  The  undersigned  demand  that  you  produce,  forthwith, 
and  lodge  at  the  public  store  No.  17  Nassau  street,  the  goods  referred  to. 
in  your  entries  at  the  custom-house,  by  the  ships  Rhone,  Ville  de  Lyon,, 
Charlemagne,  and  Utica,  to  the  end  that  they  may  be  examined. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  La  Chaise  &  Fouche. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  26,  1S3S. 
Sir  :  I  addressed  you  yesterday  on  the  subject  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.  I 
have  since  understood  that  he  has  from  $50,000  to  $100,000  worth  of  goods 
in  the  possession  of  S.  C.  &  J.  Ford,  of  your  city.  Will  you  make  in- 
quiries upon  the  subject,  and  proceed,  if  there  are  any  of  the  packages 
described  in  my  letter  of  yesterday  ? 

Yours,  kc. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

.  John  M.  Read,  Esq.,  Philadelphia. 


388  Eep.  No.  669. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  April  21,  133S. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  favor  of  yesterday.  I  understand  Messrs.  Stevens  & 
Co.,  or  some  other  auction  house  in  your  city,  sold,  on  Tuesday  last,  a  1 
large  amount  of  goods  of  Bottomly's;  if  so,  I  would  seize  the  goods  if 
the  merchants  have  not  in  fact  paid  for  them.    French  goods  were  shipped  : 

yesterday  by  the  steamboat  Swan;  the  wrapper  is  marked  ,  and  the  ' 

inside  mark  is  or  .    I  wish  all  with  either  of  these  marks  seized 

and  dealt  with  according  to  law. 

The  French  goods  were  consigned  to  Davis,  Stevenson,  &  Co.    If  Bot- 
lomly  is  in  your  city,  arrest  him,  and  hold  him  to  bail  for  $10,000.    I  will 
send  you  an  affidavit  of  "belief  that  he  is  justly  indebted  to  the  United 
States  in  that  sum,"  if  your  practice  requires  this  form. 
Respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Attorney ',  Philadelphia. 

N.  B.  If  the  wrapper  marked  is  taken  off,  you  must  be  careful  to 

preserve  it,  as  it  forms  a  part  of  the  proof.  J.  H. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  21,  183S. 

Sir  :  I  think  Mr.  Bottomly  is  now  in  your  city  ;  if  so,  I  wish  you  to 
hold  him  to  bail  for  $10,000,  and  I  will  send  you  an  affidavit  for  this  pur- 
pose, that  "  I  believe  him  indebted  to  the  United  States  in  that  sum." 

He  has,  in  the  course  of  the  week,  in  all  human  probability,  sold  the 
goods  in  your  city  at  auction.  If  they  have  not  been  paid  for  by  the  pur- 
chasers, I  wish  them  seized. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Nathaniel  Williams,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  21,  1S38. 
Sir  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  communication  of  the  25th,  and  I  have 
others  from  the  Department  that  require  my  attention,  but  1  have  been  so 
much  oppressed  by  the  investigations  I  have  been  conducting,  that  I  have 
not  had  the  opportunity  to  devote  sufficient  attention  to  the  subjects  to 
write  understandingly.  I  shall  succeed  in  effectually  breaking  up  a  system 
that  has  prevailed  here,  very  seriously  affecting  the  revenue,  and  almost 
driving  the  fair  merchant  out  from  business.  I  am  informed  that  many  ar- 
ticles of  merchandise  have  advanced  in  price  in  this  market  very  considera- 
bly since  my  action  on  this  subject.  I  have  given  directions  to  the  district 
attorneys  of  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore  to  act  in  the  premises,  but  I  have 
not  the  leisure  to  make  a  detailed  report  to  the  Department,  but  will  do  so 
in  a  few  days,  for  the  use  of  other  officers.  I  will  give  the  ?twdus  operandi 
by  which  these  transactions  have  been  conducted.  In  relation  to  the  offi- 
cers, I  have  only  to  say  that,  under  the  advice  of  the  district  attorney,  I  em- 


Bep.  No.  669.  389 

ployed  those  only  to  perform  the  special  duties  I  have  required  to  be  per- 
formed whom  I  found  in  office,  and  whom  I  proposed  to  retain  ;  but  I  swore 
them  anew,  because  I  was  so  well  satisfied  of  the  construction  I  have  given 
to  the  act,  that  i  would  not  subject  them  or  myself  to  private  actions  for 
seizing  goods  without  competent  authority.  My  desire  to  have  that  con- 
struction sanctioned,  I  will  freely  admit,  arises  from  a  disposition  to  have 
the  law,  rather  than  the  collector,  remove  those  whom  I  think  the  public 
require  should  not  be  retained.  I  am  aware  that  you  will  hear  many  com- 
plaints, and  I  am  to  receive  reproaches  ;  but  of  this  I  shall  take  no  note,  as 
long  as  I  feel  conscious  of  discharging  my  duties  faithfully.  I  have  pre- 
pared new  commissions,  to  be  delivered,  and  oaths  to  be  taken,  on  the  1st 
of  May, for  the  whole  list  I  sent  you.  If  I  employ  officers  to  perform  duties, 
not  clothed  with  legal  authority,  I  make  myself  and  them  personally  re- 
sponsible, and  we  are  to  be  turned  over  to  Congress  for  protection.  I  am 
unwilling  to  be  placed  in  this  position,  unless  there  is  a  very  grave  necessity 
for  it.  I  will  not  shrink  from  any  responsibility  the  law  imposes ;  beyond 
that  I  am  sure  it  is  not  your  desire  to  have  me  act.  The  "  usage  of  the 
Department"  can  never,  in  my  judgment,  ripen  into  an  enactment  of  law, 
so  as  to  have  a  controlling  influence  upon  a  judicial  construction;  and  I 
must  confess  I  would  have  as  much  confidence  in  Mr.  Justice  Story's  judi- 
cial opinion  on  the  subject  as  I  would  in  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney 
General. 

If  there  is  no  prominent  objection  to  my  swearing  in  the  old  as  well  as 
the  new  officers  on  the  1st  of  May,  I  should  feel  much  more  secure  in  my 
position.  The  experience  I  have  had  the  last  three  weeks  teaches  me  of 
the  necessity  of  placing  around  the  Government  and  myself  every  possible 
guard,  and  I  should  be  glad  of  permission  to  take  the  course  I  have  indicat- 
ed. I  have  to  go  through  a  severe  trial  in  placing  matters  here  as  I  think 
they  should  be,  and,  to  do  this,  I  want  efficient  aid. 
I  am,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  28,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  have  positive  information  that  Mr.  Bottomiy  has  a  large  amount 
of  goods  in  Hoffman  &  Co.'s  auction  store,  and  that  no  advance  has  been 
made  on  them.  I  wish  them  seized,  in  my  name,  forthwith.  Messrs.  Hoff- 
man &  Co.  will  give  you  every  facility.  Seize  the  original  packages,  with  the 
marks,  whether  empty  or  not,  to  the  end  that  we  will  prove  that  certain 
goods  came  from  certain  packages.  I  trust  to  your  vigilance  for  the  pro  - 
tection of  all  parties  concerned. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Nathaniel  Williams, 

U.  S.  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


390 


Sep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  28,  183S. 
Sir  :  Mr.  George  A.  Wasson,  a  special  deputy  for  this  purpose  appoint 
ed,  leaves  this  afternoon  in  the  mail  line,  and  will  be  in  your  city  early  to 
morrow  morning,  to  look  after  the  affairs  concerning  which  I  have  writte 
you  for  the  last  few  days. 

I  beg  you  will  afford  all  possible  energy  in  the  matter  referred  to. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 


g  Custom-House,  New  York,  April  28,  1S38. 

Sir  :  Mr.  George  A.  Wasson,  a  special  deputy,  w  ill  proceed  to  Philadel- 
phia, to  take  charge  of  the  matters  referred  to  in  your  letter  of  yesterday. 
He  is  acquainted  with  the  circumstances,  and  will  detail  them  all. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Samuel  D.  Patterson, 

U.  S.  Maashal,  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  1,  1838. 

Sir  :  I  noticed,  by  a  paragraph  in  our  papers,  taken  from  the  Boston 
Transcript  of  Saturday  last,  stating,  in  substance,  that  the  collector  of  the 
port  of  Boston,  upon  information  from  New  York,  had  seized,  that  day,  a 
large  amount  of  English  woollens,  for  an  alleged  violation  of  the  revenue 
laws  at  the  port  of  New  York. 

Will  you  be  so  good  as  to  inform  me  as  to  the  truth  of  the  statement,  and 
upon  what  information  from  New  York  the  seizure  was  made,  and  from 
whence  the  information  was  derived  ? 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

George  Bancroft,  Esq., 

Collector,  Boston. 


Treasury  Department,  May  1,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  29th  ultimo.  I  beg  leave  to  en- 
close a  copy  of  Judge  Berrien's  opinion,  heretofore  referred  to,  by  which 
you  will  perceive  that  the  expression  in  the  appointment  (to  wit  :  "  during 
the  pleasure  of  the  collector")  means  the  collector  for  the  time  being.  This 
construction  corresponds  with  the  forms  of  all  the  commissions  granted  by 
the  President.  I  therefore  see  no  reason  for  change  and  innovations  in  any 
forms  which  have  been  adopted  and  sanctioned  for  nearly  one -third  of  a 
century. 

The  list  you  sent  here  was  returned,  in  order  that  you  might  designate 
who  were  new  officers,  and  in  whose  places  appointed.  Otherwise,  we  can 


Eep.  No.  689. 


391 


keep  no  correct  list  here,  for  reference  and  periodical  publication.  When  it 
is  returned,  ana!  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General  received  in  reference 
to  the  power  to  remove  subordinate  officers  of  the  customs,  without  the  pre- 
vious approbation  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  as  presented  in  Mr. 
Ingham's  circular,  I  will  be  happy  to  act  finally  on  the  whole  subject. 
I  am,  very  respectfullv,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Treasury  Department,  May  2,  1833. 
Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  30th  ulti- 
mo, transmitting  your  return  of  moneys  received  and  paid  the  week  pre- 
ceding. 

When  the  funds  on  hand,  at  anyone  time,  in  money,  are  larger  in  amount 
than  you  will  need,  I  wish  you  to  apprize  us  of  the  excess,  and  state  that  it 
is  held  subject  to  the  Treasurer's  draft,  in  order  that  the  Department  may 
draw  for  it  as  occasion  may  require. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  3,  1S3S. 

Sir  :  I  return  you  the  list  of  officers  heretofore  transmitted  you  for  ap- 
proval, with  the  correction  of  some  spelling  in  names,  and  also  striking  out 
the  name  of  Abraham  T.  Hillyer,  who  declined  the  appointment  of  inspect- 
or. This,  then,  leaves  two  vacancies,  which  I  shall  claim  the  privilege  of 
filling  hereafter,  for  reasons  of  a  strong  character.  I  also  send  you  a  print- 
ed list  I  obtained  from  the  surveyor's  office,  with  the  names  erased  whom 
I  did  not  renominate,  and  the  names  in  manuscript  whom  I  report  as  fit 
persons  to  put  in  their  places. 

The  Attorney  General,  on  my  request,  and  for  my  government,  favored 
me  with  the  perusal  of  the  draught  of  his  opinion  which  he  sent  you  on  the 
30th  ultimo.  When  Mr.  Thompson  succeeded  Mr.  Gelston,  he  called  in  all 
the  old  warrants,  and  issued  new  ones,  and  of  course  administered  the  oaths 
anew;  and  that  precedent,  for  many  reasons  which  I  have  before  adverted 
to,  was  more  satisfactory  for  me  to  follow  than  the  one  adopted  by  Mr. 
Swartwout  when  he  came  in  ;  and  I  accordingly  swore  into  office,  on  the 
first  instant,  all  the  old  officers  retained,  as  well  as  the  new  ones.  I  could 
not  get  along  in  any  other  way.  Under  your  letter  of  the  23d,  and  the  At- 
torney General's  opinion,  I  thought  this  course  would  not  be  deemed  by 
you  objectionable.  If,  however,  it  is,  I  am  content  to  abide  the  consequences. 
I  have  read  Judge  Berrien's  opinion,  which,  in  my  judgment,  does  not 
touch  the  question,  or  at  least  it  does  not  satisfy  my  mind  upon  the  subject. 
Several  people  have  to  die  or- resign  before  the  Government  is  without  a 
Jiead,  and  therefore  the  officers  holding  under  the  President  and  Senate  do 


392  Rep."  No.  669. 

not,  of  necessity,  go  out  upon  the  retirement  of  the  person  holding  the  office' 
of  President. 

I  have  nothing  further  to  add,  than  if  I  am  instructed  to  undo  what  I 
have  done,  it  is  a  task  that  must  be  done  by  other  hands.  My  labors  in 
this  respect  have  been  too  great  to  be  again  endured  by  me. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

N.  B.  The  night  inspectors  are  all  in  manuscript ;  the  first  ten  are  new 
ones,  and  the  others  are  old  ones,  which  1  forgot  to  state  at  the  proper  place. 

J.  H.,  Collector. 


Treasury  Department,  May  3,  1S3S. 
Sir  :  I  transmit  for  your  consideration  a  letter  and  accompanying  papers, 
received  from  the  surveyor  of  your  port,  in  behalf  of  certain  subordinate 
officers  of  the  customs  at  New  York. 

The  surveyor  has  been  informed  of  this  reference,  and  also  of  the  opinion 
of  the  Attorney  General,  that  you  have  full  and  exclusive  power,  under  the 
law,  in  regard  to  the  removal  of  subordinates. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  Boston,  May  4,  1838. 

Sir  :  This  morning  I  received  a  letter,  without  signature,  bearing  date 
Custom-House,  New  York,  May  1,  1838,  and  making  inquiries  respecting 
certain  seizures  in  this  place.  It  is  true  that  some  seizures  have  been  made, 
but  I  do  not  think  the  interest  of  the  Government  will  at  this  time  be  pro- 
moted by  pointing  out  the  source  of  the  information  which  led  to  them,  nor 
do  I  consider  myself  authorized  to  give  names. 

To  one  case  I  will  call  your  attention  :  five  bales  of  kerseys,  marked 
and  numbered  W  1  to  5,  were  seized  at  the  depot  of  the  Boston  and  Provi- 
dence railroad  on  Monday  last. 

1  enclose  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Piatt  &  Duncan  respecting  them.  They 
should  have  sent  a  certificate  from  you  that  the  duties  were  paid. 

Their  letter  seems  to  be  equivocal.  They  do  not  say  that  they  were  the 
importers.    There  is  good  ground  for  suspecting  they  were  not. 

I  should  not  have  troubled  you  with  this  affair  but  for  the  letter,  appa- 
rently from  you,  received  this  morning,  but  should  simply  have  required  a 
production  of  the  proper  certificates. 

Yours,  &c. 

'  GEORGE  BANCROFT,  Collector. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


393 


Treasury  Department,  May  5,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  3d  instant, 
I  with  its  enclosed  list  of  nominations. 

I  I  find,  on  examining  the  list,  that  the  whole  number  of  the  oflicers  have 
been  increased  to  the  extent  of  three  on  the  list  of  inspectors,  including  the 
two  vacancies  to  which  you  refer. 

Presuming  that  this  was  done  under  your  statement  on  the  18th  ultimo, 
that  no  more  would  be  nominated  than  the  wants  of  the  public  service  re- 
quired, I  approve  of  the  old  number  as  permanent  officers,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  four  "  deputy  inspectors  or  markers,"  which,  being  "  deputy  in- 
spectors of  th'e  revenue"  and  not  of  the  customs,  are  nominated  by  the  sur- 
veyor. But  the  additional  inspector,  being  the  last  on  the  list  of  inspectors 
of  the  customs,  is  to  be  viewed  as  temporary  till  a  diminution  in  the  press 
of  business  will  enable  you  to  discontinue  him  or  others. 

In  respect  to  the  individuals  nominated,  I  know  of  no  objection  to  their 
qualifications,  and,  presuming  that  you  have  exercised  due  care  in  present- 
ing proper  persons,  I  confirm  their  nominations,  with  the  exception  before 
named. 

This  is  done  without  any  reference  to  the  propriety  or  reasons  for  the  re- 
movals or  changes  made,  as  the  Attorney  General  has  decided  that  those 
changes  are,  by  law,  exclusively  devolved  on  you,  as  well  as  the  responsi- 
bility for  their  correctness. 

In  regard  to  the  appointing  and  swearing  of  the  old  officers  anew,  as  I  be- 
fore communicated  to  you,  the  Department  considers  it  unnecessary,  but 
does  not  perceive  that  it  can  do  any  harm. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector.  fc 


Marshal's  Office,  Philadelphia,  May  5,  183S. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  hasten  to  inform  you  that  three  packages  of  French  goods, 
supposed  to  belong  to  those  referred  to  in  your  recent  letter,  were  this  morn- 
ing seized  at  the  auction  store  of  Myers  &  Clagham,  43  Market  street. 

The  cases  are  marked  as  follows : 

B  D 

^     and  the  numbers  are:  126,  1146,  1175. 

Respectfully,  yours,  &c. 

SAMUEL  D.  PATTERSON, 
Marshal  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania, 
Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,^. 


Custom-Hotxse,  New  York,  May  7,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  yours  of  the  5th  instant,  and  beg  permission 
to  present  my  views  in  regard  to  the  power  I  exercised  in  nominating  for 
your  approval  the  "  markers"  for  this  port.  Iam  fatigued,  as  no  doubt 
you  must  be,' with  this  unpleasant  subject ;  but  I  owe  it  to  myself,  as  well 
as  the  public  service,  to  have  a  right  understanding  in  regard  to  these  mat- 


394 


Rep.  No.  669. 


ters.  I  have  examined  the  law  from  1789  to  the  present  time,  and  I  ven- 
ture to  say  there  is  an  entire  absence  of  authority  in  the  surveyor  to  ap- 
point a  deputy  of  any  kind,  or  for  any  purpose,  except  that  referred  to  in 
the  22d  section  of  the  act  of  1799.  By  the  act  of  1S17,  the  collector  may 
appoint  deputies  ;  but  this  right  is  no  where  enlarged  beyond  the  act  of 
1799,  to  the  surveyor.  His  duties  are  pointed  out  by  the  21st  section  of 
the  last-mentioned  act ;  and  as  well  has  he  the  right  to  appoint  "deputies" 
to  assist  him  in  the  performance  of  these  various  duties,  referred  to  there, 
.as  in  the  performance  of  duties  relating  to  the  "  inspector"  of  distilled  spirits, 
&c.  The  phrase  so  often  used  in  the  35th  section  of  the  act,  with  a  slight 
change  of  words,  "surveyor,  or  officer  acting  as  inspector  of  the  revenue 
for  the  port,"  had  its  origin,  I  think,  in  the  Sth  section  of  the  act  of  1789, 
Where  provision  is  made  for  the  collector,  in  case  there  is  no  surveyor,  to 
appoint  a  person  to  execute  the  duties,  who  shall  have  the  compensation 
and  the  power  of  an  inspector.  (See  Story's  edition,  vol.  1,  page  17  ;  and  a 
similar  provision  is  contained  in  the  21st  section  of  the  act  of  1799.)  The 
38th  section  of  the  last  act  carries  out  this  idea,  and  provides  that  the 
landing  shall  be  had  under  the  inspection  of  the  surveyor,  "or  other  officer 
acting  as  inspector  of  the  revenue  for  the  port."  And  it  goes  on  to  add, 
"and  such  of  the  inspectoi*s  of  the  customs  as  shall  be  deputed  by  him 
for  that  purpose."  This  is  confined  to  the  "landing,"  which  gives  the  right 
to  "  depute"  an  inspector  of  my  appointing;  and  the  provision  to  that  sec- 
tion explains  the  construction  to  be  given  to  the  body  of  the  section.  The 
authority  to  the  collector  in  the  21st  section  is  general  to  appoint  "  inspect- 
ors" of  the  port,  and  not  inspectors  of  the  customs,  as  they  are  called  in 
subsequent  sections.  The  power  is  general  to  appoint  all  "  inspectors" 
-connected  with  "  the  collection  of  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage,"  for  this 
is  the  title  of  the  act.  The  term  "  surveyor"  is  not  synonymous  with  the 
words  "  officer  acting  as  inspector  of  the  revenue."  The  provisions  of  law 
for  the  appointment  of  the  two  officers  is  distinct,  and  I  cannot  find  any  au- 
thority for  uniting  them.  In  some  cases  provision  is  made  that  the  collect- 
or acts  as  surveyor,  and  even  naval  officer  ;  but  there  is  no  provision,  that 
I  have  been  able  to  find,  combining  the  two  offices  of  surveyor  and  inspect- 
or of  the  revenue,  in  the  sense  you  suppose.  It  is  true  the  surveyor  ascer- 
tains the  proof  of  spirits,  and  the  qualities  of  tea,  &c.  ;  but  this  does  no: 
necessarily  make  him  an  inspector  of  the  revenue,  within  the  meaning  of 
the  act,  any  more  than  his  authority  to  examine  weights  and  measures, 
or  goods  entered  for  exportation,  would  make  him  such  inspector  ;  nor  does 
the  authority  to  do  either  of  these  things  invest  him  with  power  to  ap- 
point "deputies"  to  perform  the  act  for  him.  The  collector,  in  fact,  is  the 
chief  officer  of  inspection  of  the  port ;  and  all  others,  connected  with  the 
collection  of  duties  at  the  port,  are  his  subordinates.  I  find  no  authority 
in  the  surveyor,  except  as  before  stated  as  growing  out  of  the  21st  section, 
or  in  any  inspector  of  the  revenue,  "  to  appoint"  any  person  to  represent 
him,  except  in  the  single  case  of  the  teas,  referred  to  in  the  62d  section  of 
the  act,  where  it  is  provided  that  one  of  the  keys  may  be  kept  "  by  such 
other  person  as  he  shall  depute  or  appoint  in  his  behalf."  There  is  power 
given  in  the  act  of  March  3, 1S03,  to  the  President,  to  transfer  the  duties  of 
the  office  of  "  supervisor"  to  some  other  person  ;  but  I  find  no  authority  to 
invest  the  surveyor  with  the  office  of  "  inspector  of  the  revenue,"  any  further 
than  belongs  to  the  collector,  or  naval  officer,  or  surveyor,  in  virtue  of  the 
general  powers  with  which  they  are  invested,  to  look  after  the  rights  of 


Sep.  ?So.  669. 


the  Government.  The  act  of  1  SI 3  (1st  section)  continues  the  phraseology- 
found  in  the  older  act,  of  "  surveyor  or  officer  of  inspection  of  the  reve- 
nue ;"  and  the  same  necessity  exists  now  as  in  1789  for  the  distinction  ;  for 
there  are  many  places  where  there  are  no  surveyors,  and  the  collector  acts 
as  such,  or  deputes  some  other  person.  I  am  strengthened  in  the  conclusion 
I  come  to  by  the  act  of  1820,  uniting  the  term  of  certain  offices.  The  sur- 
veyor is  there  called,  what  he  always  in  fact  has  been,  "  surveyor  of  the 
customs,"  and  as  an  officer,  in  my  judgment,  wholly  separate  and  distinct 
from  an  "inspector  of  the  revenue." 

The  commission  of  all  officers  employed  in  levying  or  collecting  the  pub- 
lic revenue,  "  not  required  to  be  recorded  in  the  Treasury  Department,  and 
under  the  seal  of  that  Department,"  emanates  from  the  head  of  the  port 
or  place  where  the  business  is  to  be  done,  with  the  exception  of  the 
"deputies"  authorized  by  the  21st  section  of  the  act  of  1799  ;  and  hence 
the  naval  officer  or  surveyor  are  not,  as  the  collector  is,  bound  to  submit 
the  nominations  for  your  approval,  because  they  have  not  the  power  of 
appointing  any  deputies  but  such  as  are  last  referred  to,  and  them  only  as 
temporary.  And  it  was  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  law,  "  that  the 
principal  officer  of  the  Treasury  Department"  should  have  the  power  to 
pass  upon  the  appointment  of  all  persons  holding  responsible  stations  in 
the  collection  of  the  revenue;  and  the  collector  is  accordingly,  by  the  law, 
required  to  pay  all  such  persons  for  their  services;  and  he  always  has  paid 
the  markers  or  deputy  inspectors.  The  naval  officer  and  surveyor  both 
pay  the  clerks  and  deputies  proper,  but  not  the  "markers;"  and,  as  he  does 
not  pay  them,  he  has  no  power  to  create  them. 

It  is  true  the  act  of  1822  (sec.  15)  alludes  to  the  compensation  of  a 
deputy  surveyor;  but  as  that  is  a  deputy  authorized  by  the  act  of  1799,  at 
least  in  the  absence  of  any  authority  to  appoint  any  other  deputies,  it  must 
be  held  to  apply  only  to  that  act;  but  I  can  find  no  authority,  or  even  al- 
dusion  to  authority,  for  the  appointment  of  "a  deputy  inspector  of  the  rev- 
enue." The  term  "marker"  has  not  crept  into  the  statute  book  before 
1836.  In  the  3d  section  of  the  appropriation  act  of  July  4,  of  that  year, 
he  is  called  upon,  by  the  name  of  marker,  to  account  to  the  collector  for 
certain  fees,  as  the  weighers,  gaugers,  and  measurers  are  ;  and  so  again  in 
the  2d  section  of  the  act  of  March  3,  1S37,  the  same  provision  is  con- 
tained. I  have  stated  the  word  "marker"  was  not  used  until  1S26;  but 
the  term  "mark"  is  used  for  the  first  time  in  the  act  of  1799,  in  section  39. 
In  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  chapter  129,  fixing  the  compensation  of  the 
"officers,"  &c,  section  2d,  the  weighers,  gaugers,  and  measurers,  have  a 
compensation  for  marking,  "in  double  characters,"  certain  things;  and  it  is 
the  same  "double  character"  that  the  39th  section  alludes  to.  Fees,  by 
this  2d  section,  are  allowed  to  "surveyor  or  inspector  of  the  revenue  for 
ports,"  and  "to  the  deputies  of  the  inspectors  aforesaid,  for  casks,  &c, 
by  them  marked,  and  returned  to  their  respective  principals."  The  markers 
make  the  same  returns  to  the  collector  that  the  weighers  or  measurers 
make ;  and,  as  I  pay  both  of  them,  I  am  the  principal.  Bnt  this  is  the  only 
instance  where  deputy  inspectors  are  named;  and  there  is  no  more  author- 
ity to  create  such  an  office,  except  the  general  provision  conferred  on  the 
collector  to  appoint  inspectors,  than  there  is  for  me,  as  collector,  to  create 
the  office  of  auditor  and  pashier  of  the  custom-house.  Such  officers  are 
unknown  to  the  law,  but  we  nevertheless  call  them  by  that  name.  It  is 
arbitrary  and  unauthorized. 


396 


Rep.  No.  669. 


These  are  some  of  the  reasons  to  induce  me  to  believe  that  I  am  right* 
and  the  surveyor  wrong.  They  are  reasons  drawn  up  in  the  hours  of 
business,  in  the  course  of  the  morning,  and  must,  of  course,  be  very  crude 
and  immethodical.  I  was  promised  a  written  opinion  from  Mr.  Price  to- 
day, and,  in  the  absence  of  that,  I  send  this. 

Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  7,  183S. 
Sir  :  Your  favor  of  the  5th  instant,  informing  me  of  the  seizure  of  four 

packages  of  goods  marked  ,  and  numbered  126,  1146,  and  1175,  was 

received  this  day. 

I  have  an  examination  now  going  on  that  will  enable  me  to  give  you 
further  instructions  in  the  matter. 

Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

S.  D.  Patterson,  Esq.,  Marshal,  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  8,  183S. 
Sir  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  favor  of  the  4th  instant.  The  object  oi 
my  inquiry  was  to  ascertain  whether  any  violations  of  duty  had  been  prac- 
tised by  the  clerks  in  my  office.  I  supposed,  from  the  position  we  occupied, 
that  the  inquiry  was  a  proper  one  to  be  made,  and  equally  proper  for  you 
to  have  responded  to  ;  and  the  more  especially  so,  as  it  was  represented 
that  the  fraud  was  practised  in  this  office. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

George  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Collector,  Boston. 


Marshal's  Office,  Philadelphia,  May  9,  1S3S. 
Dear  Sir  :  Enclosed  I  forward,  agreeably  to  request,  a  copy  of  your 
letter  of  the  27th  ultimo.    I  also  append,  as  desired,  a  memorandum  of  ex- 
penses incurred  in  the  examinations,  &c,  made  in  the  case  of  Bottomly, 
and  in  the  search  for  goods  supposed  to  be  in  the  city. 
Very  respectfully,  &c. 

SAMUEL  D.  PATTERSON, 
Marshal  Eastern  District  of  Pennsylvania. 
Jesse  Hovt,  Esq.,  Collector,  New  York. 

Expenses  of  a  special  messenger  sent  to  New  York         -  -  $12  00 

Six  days'  employment  of  a  deputy  in  going  to  New  York,  making 

examinations,  &c,  at  $2  per  day  -  -  -  -    12,  00 


#24  00 


Bep.  No.  669. 


397 


Treasury  Department,  May  14,  1838. 
Sir  :  The  Department  concurring  in  the  suggestions  contained  in  the  ac- 
companying report  from  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  in  regard  to  the 
subject  referred  to  in  your  letter  of  the  1st  instant,  of  refunding  duties  on 
"  brown  linens,"  it  is  transmitted  for  your  government. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Treasury  Department, 
First  Comptroller's  Office.  May  12,  183S. 

Sir  :  Upon  mature  consideration  of  the  views  presented  in  the  accom- 
panying letter  from  the  collector  at  New  York,  dated  the  1st  instant,  which 
has  been  referred  to  me,  I  have  the  honor  to  report  that  in  my  opinion  it 
would  be  the  more  advisable  course  to  confer  on  the  collector,  jointly  with 
the  appraisers,  a  discretion  to  refund  the  duty  on  all  linens  alleged  to  be 
unbleached,  similar  to  those  which  have  been  the  subject  of  judicial  inves- 
tigation and  decision,  in  the  cases  referred  to  by  the  district  attorney,  or  ad- 
mit them  to  a  free  entry,  as  the  case  may  be  ;  and  that  in  regard  to  those 
in  which  the  appraisers  contemplate  a  more  favorable  issue,  one  of  the  im- 
portations be  designated  for  trial,  to  settle  the  question,  pursuing  their  sug- 
gestions, with  the  understanding  that  the  other  importations  await  the  is- 
sue, which  will  be  considered  applicable  to  them. 

The  expediency  of  further  legislation  appears  to  me  to  be  so  manifest 
and  urgent,  as  well  in  relation  to  linens  as  to  worsted  goods,  that  I  propose 
submitting  my  views  to  your  consideration  in  a  separate  report  at  the  ear- 
liest convenient  moment;  but,  as  it  would  not  be  retrospective  in  its  effect, 
and  anxious  to  disembarrass  the  collector  at  New  York,  it  would  not  seem 
productive  of  any  beneficial  result  to  postpone  the  action  which  may  be 
proper  on  the  suggestions  I  submit  for  that  purpose. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  N.  BARKER,  Comptroller. 

Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Philadelphia,  May  14,  1838. 
Sir  :  In  order  for  further  proceedings  against  the  packages  seized  here 
under  your  directions,  it  will  be  necessary  to  furnish  me  with  the  name  of 
the  vessel  in  which  they  were  imported,  the  name  of  the  master,  and  the 
date  of  the  importation  ;  also,  in  what  manner  they  were  introduced,  and 
what  kind  of  goods,  with  the  names  of  the  importers  or  consignees,  and 
smh  other  information  as  you  may  deem  material.  Our  court  sits  next 
Monday. 

I  am,  &c. 

JOHN  M.  READ, 
United  Statu  Attorney. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector.  §c. 


398 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Appraisers'  Office,  New  York,  May  16,  1838. 
The  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York  having  on  the  26th  April  last, 
and  again  on  the  14th  and  15th  days  of  May  instant,  taken  from  the 
store  of  Messrs.  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  a  certain  quantity  of  goods,  for  the 
purpose  of  examining  and  determining  whether  the  owners,  agents,  or 
consignees  of  said  goods  had  paid  or  secured,  or  caused  to  be  paid  or  se- 
cured, the  duties  imposed  thereon  by  law,  and  the  said  collector  having  re- 
quested the  undersigned,  appraisers  of  the  port  of  New  York,  to  examine 
and  appraise  said  goods,  you  are  therefore  required,  in  pursuance  of  the 
statute  in  such  case  made  and  provided,  to  appear  before  us,  at  our  office, 
No.  17  Nassau  street,  on  Thursday  the  17th  day  of  May  instant,  at  ten 
o'clock,  A.  M.,  to  the  end  that  you  may  be  examined  under  oath  touching 
any  or  all  matters  or  things  relating  to  said  goods  ;  and  you  are  also  here- 
by required,  on  oath,  to  deposite  with  the  collector  of  the  port  of  New  York 
all  letters,  accounts,  and  invoices,  relating  to  said  goods. 

A.  B.  MEAD. 

A.  B.  VANDERPOEL. 

JEROMUS  JOHNSON. 

Messrs.  La  Chaise  &  Fouche. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  16.  1838. 
Sir  :  I  am*  in  receipt  of  your  favor  of  the  9th  instant,  and  I  regret  that  I 
should  have  been  so  little  understood  as  it  seems  I  must  have  been,  by  the 
following  extract  from  your  letter  :  "  There  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
there  has  been  any  delinquency  on  the  part  of  the  clerks  in  this  office."  It 
was  not  my  desire  to  assume  the  right  to  inquire  into  the  manner  in  which 
the  clerks  in  your  office  discharged  their  duties  ;  I  have  no  cognizance  of 
that  matter,  but  I  was  apprehensive  that  some  one  in  my  own  office  bad 
given  information  to  others,  and  withheld  it  from  me,  but  I  have  since  be- 
come satisfied  that  this  was  not  the  case. 

I  The  extent  of  the  frauds  here  is  enormous,  and  it  has  been  quite  as  ex- 
tended in  French  as  in  English  goods.  I  have  seized  this  week  90  pack- 
ages of  French  goods,  which  is  only  about  a  tenth  part  of  those  which  have 
been  improperly  passed  at  the  custom-house  at  this  port. 

I  hope  hereafter  that  I  shall  make  myself  better  understood  in  my  com- 
munications to  you,  or  at  least  that  the  letters  shall  be  signed. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

George  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Collector,  Boston. 


Treasury  Department,  May  17,  1S38. 
Sir  :  Enclosed,  herewith,  you  have  a  letter  to  the  honorable  Samuel 
Cushman,from  William  F.  Salter,  Esq.,  presenting  his  views  as  to  the  most 
practicable  guards  against  frauds  on  the  revenue,  which  you  will  please  to 
look  over  and  return  to  this  Department. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Horr,  Esq.,  Collector, 


Rep.  No.  669. 


399 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  19,  1838. 

Sir  :  It  was  not  until  a  few  evenings  since  I  discovered  the  provisions 
of  the  4th  section  of  the  act  of  May  29,  1830,  entitled  "  An  act  to  provide 
for  the  appointment  of  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury." 

I  had  intended  to  have  complied  with  these  provisions  before  this,  but, 
as  there  have  been  at  this  port  many  more  seizures  than  there  ought  to 
have  been,  with  reference  to  the  honor  of  our  commercial  community,  I 
have  not  had  the  leisure  to  give  you  a  detail  of  them,  but  I  will  cause  it 
to  be  done  as  soon  as  I  can  have  such  detail  prepared. 

With  great  respect,  I  am  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solid  I  or  of  the  Treasury. 


[Private.] 

Custom-House,  New  York,  May  21,  1S38. 
Sir  :  I  owe  you  an  apology  for  not  having  replied  to  your  favor  of  the 
14th  instant,  but  I  have  been  so  excessively  engaged  in  ferreting  out  the 
frauds  that  have  been  practised  here,  that  I  have  not  had  the  leisure  to  in- 
struct you  as  to  the  course  I  wished  to  have  adopted.  I  have  a  warrant 
out  for  forgery  as  well  as  perjury  against  one  of  the  houses  alluded  to  ; 
and  I  must  beg  your  indulgence  for  a  few  days  longer  on  this  subject. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq.,  U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  29,  1S3S. 
Sir  :  Our  quarantine  regulations  commence  on  the  first  of  June,  when 
some  portion  of  the  shipping  go  to  Brooklyn.  I  have  been  on  the  point  of 
asking  permission,  for  some  time,  to  appoint  four  or  five  night  inspectors 
for  that  place,  because  I  believed  in  the  necessity  and  importance  of  such 
an  arrangement.  My  short  experience  satisfies  me  that  vigilance  is  much 
needed  for  a  fair  protection  to  the  Government.  I  am  reminded  of  what  I 
intended  to  have  done  before  now  by  the  receipt  of  a  letter  from  Colonel 
Manning,  one  of  our  best  inspectors,  which  I  now  enclose  you.  It  was 
written  upon  his  own  suggestion,  and,  as  far  as  I  can  judge,  without  any 
other  motive  than  a  desire  to  promote  the  ends  of  justice.  From  the  lib- 
erties taken  with  the  Government,  I  have  become  a  convert  to  the  opinion 
of  Colonel  Ogden,  the  surveyor  at  Jersey  City,  as  to  the  necessity  of  his 
having  a  barge  under  his  control,  about  which  I  wrote  you  on  the  5th  of 
April. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


400 


Hep.  No.  660. 


Treasury  Department,  May  31,  1S38- 
Sir  :  1  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  29th  in- 
stant, asking  permission  to  employ  four  or  five  night  inspectors,  to  be  sta- 
tioned at  Brooklyn. 

Permission  is  granted  to  employ  the  number  proposed  temporarily,  to  be 
discontinued  as  soon  as  the  public  interests  will  permit,  and  to  be  allowed 
the  usual  compensation  for  such  services. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Collector. 


Custom  -House,  New  York,  June  5,  1S33 
Sir  :  The  first  case  of  seizure  under  my  administration  was  tried  to-day, 
and  woollens  appraised  at  $21,300  were  condemned. 

Yours,  kc. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  7,  183S. 

Sir  :  The  circular  from  the  Treasury  Department,  under  date  of  the 
26th  May  last,  in  relation  to  the  registry  of  Treasury  notes,  was  received 
at  this  office  yesterday.  I  laid  it  before  the  auditor,  who  sent  me  the  en- 
closed memorandum,  which  I  send  to  you,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  why 
it  is  that  we  are  compelled  to  keep  so  large  a  numerical  force  in  this  es- 
tablishment, and  contributing  in  that  respect  to  its  expenses. 

I  am  also  informed,  by  the  auditor,  that  the  return  duties  on  linens,  &c, 
will  require  additional  clerks  ;  and,  what  is  more,  he  thinks  the  duties  on 
linens,  if  they  are  returned  down  to  the  passing  of  the  law  of  1833,  will 
take  not  much  less  than  half  a  million  of  dollars  from  the  Treasury. 

I  take  this  occasion  to  say,  that  on  the  first  day  of  July  the  quarter's 
salary  will  be  due  to  the  clerks  in  this  department.  The  funds  appropri- 
ated by  law  to  this  object  are  insufficient  to  answer  the  end,  and  I  shall 
not  feel  myself  at  liberty  to  take  any  of  the  public  moneys  in  my  hands  to 
pay  the  salaries,  and  many  of  the  gentlemen  to  whom  the  money  will  be 
due  will  be  put  to  great  inconvenience  if  they  are  disappointed  in  the  re- 
ceipt of  it.  While  on  the  subject  of  the  expenses  of  this  office,  I  fnight  re- 
fer to  the  expenses  of  procuring  books  to  comply  with  the  circular  from 
your  Department  of  the  24th  April.  It  is  estimated  that  the  books  which 
it  will  be  necessary  to  put  into  the  hands  of  the  various  officers  will  cost 
one  thousand  dollars. 

I  presume  it  was  your  intention  that  the  duties  on  "  bleached  and  un- 
bleached linens"  should  be  refunded,  whether  paid  under  protest  or  not. 

I  am.  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Eep.  No.  869. 


401 


Note. — I  think  duties  should  not  be  returned  on  linens  for  a  term  be- 
yond which  the  parties  would  have  been  entitled  to  export  for  benefit  of 
drawback*  which  is  three  years,  unless  a  protest  had  been  made  at  the 
time  of  paying  the  duties. 

J.  H.,  Collector. 


Treasury  Department,  June  12,  183S. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  7th  instant  has  been  received.  In  regard  to  the 
increased  labor  anticipated  in  consequence  of  the  Comptroller's  circular  of 
the  26,th  ultimo,  I  have  to  observe,  that  it  is  not  expected  that  many  Treas- 
ury notes  of  the  new  issue  will  be  paid  into  the  custom-house  for  duties. 
Should  the  contrary,  however,  prove  to  be  the  case,  and  the  present  cler- 
ical force  employed  on  this  duty  be  inadequate  for  a  prompt  discharge  of 
it,  the  addition  necessary  must  be  made  to  it. 

With  respect  to  the  return  duties  on  linens,  &c,  I  have  to  remark,  that  it 
is  understood  that  the  instructions  given  you  by  the  Comptroller  on  this 
subject  do  not  authorize  them  to  be  refunded  in  any  cases  where  the  du- 
ties do  not  appear  to  have  been  paid  under  protest  at  the  time  ;  the 
courts  having  directed  this  formality  to  be  necessary  to  render  the  collector 
liable  under  a  suit.  This  class  of  cases,  it  is  presumed,  is  not  large.  In 
other  cases,  the  parties  must  look  to  Congress  for  relief — the  Department 
not  considering  itself  authorized  to  go  further  than  is  necessary  to  protect 
the  collector  in  those  cases  where  he  has,  under  the  decisions  of  the  courts, 
become  personally  liable  for  duties  erroneously  exacted  under  its  instruc- 
tions. Under  this  view  of  the  case,  it  is  confidently  expected  that  no  ad- 
ditional clerks  will  be  required  for  this  branch  of  the  business  of  your  of- 
fice, as  you  seem  to  anticipate  in  a  different  result. 

In  reference  to  the  cost  of  books  to  furnish  the  information  called  for 
by  the  resolutions  of  the  Senate,  the  Department  would  like  to  be  fur- 
nished with  more  specific  data  upon  the  subject.  It  is  not  considered  es- 
sential that  the  memoranda  should  be  entered  in  books.  If  made  on 
sheets  of  paper  stitched  together,  it  is  thought  it  will  be  all  sufficient,  and 
may  be  brief. 

Respecting  the  payment  of  your  clerks,  I  have  only  to  remark,  that  the 
views  presented  by  you  on  the  subject  are  deemed  correct.  As  the  relief 
section  in  the  general  appropriation  act  of  the  3d  of  March,  1S37,  is  not 
now  in  force,  no  payments  can  consequently  be  made  under  its  provisions. 
The  Department  has  called  the  attention  of  the  appropriate  committees  of 
both  Houses  of  Congress  to  the  matter,  and  urged  upon  them  the  impe- 
rious necessity  of  early  legislation  upon  the  subject. 

The  duties  refunded  under  the  old  protests  will,  it  is  hoped,  be  paid  by 
your  predecessor,  out  of  the  money  he  retains  for  his  indemnity. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


402 


Eep.  No.  669. 


U.  S.  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  June  12,  1838. 

Sir  :  The  proctor  for  the  claimants  of  three  packages  of  ca^simeres? 
marked  and  numbered  "B*,  1,2S3, 1,284,  and  1,296/' and  twelve  packages  of 
cloths,  "B*,  1,285,  1,286,  1,287,  1,288,  1,289,  1,290,  1,291,1,292,  1,293, 
1,294, 1,295,  and  1, 297,"  imported  by  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  has  given  notice 
of  a  motion  that  the  goods  be  appraised  under  the  rules  of  the  district  court, 
and,  upon  filing  a  bond,  stipulating  and  complying  with  the  rule  in  other 
respects,  be  restored  to  the  claimant.  Apprehensive  that  the  true  value 
would  not  be  ascertained  if  the  appraisement  was  confided  to  the  persons 
designated  by  the  rule,  I  proposed  to  the  proctor  (who  had  acquiesced) 
that  the  bond  should  be  given  in  the  amount  of  the  custom-house  ap- 
praisement, which  I  supposed  had  already  been  made.  The  claimant  will 
apply  this  day  to  have  the  goods  appraised  under  the  direction  of  the 
43d  rule  of  the  district  court.  I  again  urge  upon  you  the  indispensable 
necessity  of  having  all  the  Bottomly  goods  examined  forthwith,  and  ivit  fl- 
out delay,  under  the  67th  section  of  the  act  of  1799. 

Let  Mr.  IVasson  attend  the  examination,  take  samples,  and  see  that 
they  are  connected  with  the  result  of  the  examination,  so  as  to  enable 
[him]  distinctly  to  identify  it  on  the  trial.  This  ought  to  be  done  this 
day.  I  beg  of  you  to  select  two  intelligent  merchants,  whose  testimony  will- 
be  perfectly  clear.  Useful  evidence  may  also  be  obtained,  by  tracing  the 
goods,  after  they  are  delivered  to  Bottomly,  into  the  hands  of  purchasers^. 
by  whom  the  prices  may  be  shown. 

I  again  request  the  strict  observance  of  the  within  suggestions. 
I  am,  &c. 

WILLIAM  M.  PRICE, 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 

J.  Hoyt,  Collector. 


Treasury  Department, 
First  Auditor's  Office,  June  16,  1838. 

Sir  :  I  have  this  day  addressed  a  letter  to  Samuel  Swartwout,  your 
predecessor,  in  relation  to  an  error  committed  by  him,  in  adjusting  the  ac- 
counts of  the  weighers,  gaugers,  and  measurers,  for  compensation  and  ex- 
penses, from  which  I  have  thought  proper  to  furnish  the  following  ex- 
tracts, to  guard  you  against  being  led  into  a  similar  error. 

"It  would  appear  from  your  letter,  and  the  accounts  which  have  been  ren- 
dered for  the  expenses  of  the  weighers,  gaugers,  and  measurers,  that  you  re- 
gard the  appropriation  acts  as  securing  to  all  these  officers  their  maximum 
compensation  and  expenses  in  all  cases.  This,  I  apprehend,  is  an  error.  So 
far  as  the  compensation  of  any  of  them  has  been  curtailed  by  the  act  of 
the  14th  of  July,  1S32,  they  are  entitled  to  credit  on  account  of  their  com- 
pensation and  expenses ;  but  if,  in  any  case,  the  fees  on  the  free  goods,  in  ad- 
dition to  the  actual  fees  received,  do  not  make  up  the  maximum  compen- 
sation and  expenses,  they  must  fall  short  of  the  amount.  As  to  the  meas- 
urers and  gaugers,  it  appears  that  their  fees  are  not  affected  by  the  act 
of  the  14th  of  July,  1S32 ;  and  they  therefore  stand  upon  the  same  ground 
now  that  they  did  prior  to  the  passage  of  that  act,  except  that  their  com- 
pensation is  limited  to  $  1,500  per  annum,  since  1S34.   It  follows,  therefore^ 


Eep.  No.  669. 


403 


that  they  cannot  be  allowed  anything  beyond  the  amount  of  accruing  fees 
to  meet  all  their  expenses  and  compensation.7' 

In  order  to  adjust  the  accounts  of  the  weighers  and  markers  under  the 
appropriation  act,  a  statement  should  be  furnished,  showing  that  the  ad- 
ditional fees  they  would  have  received,  if  the  act  of  the  14th  of  July, 
1832,  had  not  gone  into  effect,  would  cover  their  compensation  and  ex- 
penses. 

I  am,  &.c. 

J.  MILLER. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Collector. 


Treasury  of  the  United  States,  June  18,  1S3S. 
Sir  :  In  iej  ly  to  your  letter  of  the  15th  instant,  I  beg  leave  to  state  that 
the  object  of  the  account  you  are  to  keep  with  the  Treasurer,  and  the  week- 
ly transcript  thereof,  is,  that  we  may  always  know  to  what  extent  we  can 
draw  on  you,  without  the  risk  of  overdrawing  ;  and  to  that  end  you  should 
credit  nett  receipts  only,  and  charge  our  drafts  only,  taking  care  not  to  al- 
low any  items  of  your  general  account,  as  many  have  done,  by. charging 
disbursements,  &c. 

In  your  weekly  statements  to  the  Secretary,  it  is  proper  to  note  the  amount: 
placed  to  the  Treasurer's  credft  in  the  week  ;-but  you  must  bear  in  mind 
that  these  weekly  statements  are  merely  for  the  purpose  of  informing  the 
Secretary  of  the  general  state  of  your  office,  and  are  not  taken  into  view  in 
the  settlement  of  your  quarterly  accounts  of  customs. 

On  these  last  you  will  receive  credit  by  covering  warrant  for  the  amount 
of  discredited  drafts  on  banks  taken  in  payment  of  duties  during  the  quar- 
ter, which  are  to  be  recorded  in  the  columns  of  account  current  headed 
"  drafts.7'  In  like  manner  you  will  receive  credit  for  the  amount  of  our 
drafts  on  you  which  are  paid  in  the  quarter. 

You  will  also  receive  credit  for  amount  of  Treasury  notes  taken  in  the 
quarter  by  a  warrant  counter  to  the  one  which  is  issued  for  the  reimburse- 
ment of  said  notes. 

When  you  come  to  settle  your  quarterly  accounts  of  customs,  you  will, 
of  course,  claim  credits  as  above  indicated.  It  is  here  only  that  you  are 
held  accountable  for  your  transactions  of  debit  or  credit,  while,  in  the  mean 
time,  your  account  with  this  office  is  the  machinery  by  which  we  make  use 
of  your  nett  receipts  of  money  for  general  disbursement  of  the  Government. 

The  "enlarged  discretion"  to  which  you  refer  is  necessarily  incident  to 
your  office,  and  cannot  be  limited  under  present  circumstances,  or  while 
you  are  constrained  to  retain  possession  of  your  receipts  till  we  can  draw 
for  them.  Nevertheless,  it  should  be  so  exercised  as  to  place  under  the 
Treasurer's  control  all  that  can  be  spared,  under  a  due  regard  for  the  cur- 
rent disbursements  of  your  office. 

You  will  perceive  that  the  manner  of  using  the  discretion  is  made  appa- 
rent to  the  Secretary  by  your  weekly  statements  to  him,  and  this  is  the  only 
check  known  to  our  forms. 

Your  No.  2  is  the  right  form  for  us,  but  the  sum  is  in  the  wrong  column  > 
Your  clerks  must  be  familiar  with  the  use  of  the  column  "  drafts,"  as  thou- 


404 


Kep.  No.  669. 


sands  have  been  sent  to  us  noted  therein,  and  you  cannot  now  be  at  any 
loss  how  to  have  the  other  two. 

I  am,  &e. 

WILLIAM  B.  RANDOLPH, 
Acting  Treasurer  of  the  United  States. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  18,  1838. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  communication  of  the  12th  instant,  in  which  you  refer 
to  the  cost  of  books  to  furnish  the  information  called  for  by  the  resolution  of 
the  Senate,  and  expressing  a  wish  to  be  furnished  with  more  specific  data 
upon  the  subject.  You  observe  :  "  It  is  not  considered  essential  that  the  mem- 
oranda should  be  entered  in  books.  If  made  on  sheets  of  paper,  stitched  to- 
gether, it  is  thought  it  will  be  sufficient,  and  may  be  brief."  I  cannot  flatr- 
ter  myself  that  any  public  benefits  are  to  grow  out  of  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  referred  to  ;  but,  as  this  is  not  a  question  proper  to  be  raised  by 
those  whose  duty  it  is  to  comply  with  them,  I  felt  as  though  there  was  no 
course  for  me  to  adopt  than  to  treat  them  as  I  would  any  other  matter  of 
business,  and  that,  too,  without  looking  to  the  expense  to  be  incurred,  any 
further  than  to  see  that  economy  was  used  in  the  expenditure  ;  and,  for  that 
purpose,  I  made  a  separate  bargain  for  paper,  printing,  and  binding.  I 
send  you,  by  the  mail  that  takes  this,  two  copies  of  the  book — one  for 
clerks,  and  the  other  for  officers  generally. 

As  the  resolution  requires  a  return  to  be  made,  I  could  not  consent  to  let 
it  go  in  a  form  that  would  imply  a  want  of  business  capacity  in  the  head  of 
this  office,  who  is  charged  with  seeing  that  the  resolution  is  complied  with, 
so  far  as  relates  to  that  portion  of  the  "  officers  employed  in  the  collection 
of  the  customs"  under  the  immediate  control  of  the  collector  of  this  port.  I 
consider  every  person  who  receives  "  compensation"  for  a  regular  "  em- 
ployment" in  the  custom-house  in  this  city  as  an  officer,  within  the  mean- 
ing of  the  resolutions. 

The  third  resolution  will  be  complied  with  in  a  separate  abstract,  embrac- 
ing all  the  required  information.  We  shall  place  in  the  hands  of  each  officer  a 
copy  of  the  circular,  as  the  best  instructer  for  them.  You  have  the  estimate, 
by  the  auditor,  of  the  expense  annexed.  This  includes  the  expense  of  the 
collector's  and  the  appraisers'  offices. 

Estimate  of  1,500  copies  of  the  book  referred  to  : 


90  reams  of  paper,  at  $4        -----  $3fi0 

Ruling,  &c.     -------  90 

Binding  1,500  copies,  at  25  cents  each          -          -          -  375 

Printing        -------  300 


1,125 


We  are  required  to  report  for  one  year,  which  comprises  four  quarters. 
We  have  of — 

Day  and  night  inspectors        -----  250 

Weighers        -  -  -  -  -  -  -17 

Measurers       -  -  -  -  -         -  -17 


Hep.  No.  669.  405 

•Gaugers  12,  markers  4  -  -  -  -  -  I6f 

■Collector's  clerks,  &o.   -  -  -  -  -  7:3 


373 


Making  the  number  of  375  for  each  quarter,  which  amounts  to  1,500 
copies  required. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  19,  1838. 

Sir  :  In  the  case  of  the  15  packages  of  woollens  claimed  by  James  Bot- 
tomly,  jr.,  I  have  to  state — 

1st.  That  they  were  entered  at  this  office  as  of  the  value  of  £904  lis.  IcL 
sterling. 

2d.  The  appraisers  put  a  value  upon  them  of  £1,403  14.?.  6id.  sterling. 
That  valuation  I  now  send  you,  marked  No.  1. 

3d.  The  goods  have  since  been  appraised  under  the  67th  section  of  the 
act  of  1799,  at  the  sum  of  $10,435  67,  which  appraisement  I  now  send  you, 
marked  No.  2. 

Respectfully. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  29,  1838. 

Sir  :  I  received  your  letter  of  this  day,  and  also  the  one  you  refer  to.  I 
did  not  answer  the  letter,  for  I  was  in  hopes  the  present  Congress  would 
have  settled  the  question  for  us,  and  left  every  thing  free  from  doubt. 

I  have  examined  the  law,  and  am  satisfied  that  my  officers  must  do  the 
business  in  Jersey  City.  I  pay  Colonel  Ogden  his  salary,  as  I  understand, 
and  of  course  it  must  be  considered  in  my  district. 

It  is  very  apparent  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was  mistaken  in 
his  letter  to  you  of  the  25th  November,  1834,  and  the  mistake,  no  doubt, 
arose  from  his  want  of  knowledge  of  the  localities  referred  to  in  the  9th 
section  of  the  act  of  June,  1834. 

I  am.  &c.  I 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

A.  Gifford,  Esq., 

Collector,  Newark,  New  Jersey. 


Custom-House,  New  Y'ork,  July  5,  1838. 
Sir  :  On  the  receipt  of  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  General,  accompanied 
by  the  communication  of  the  Comptroller,  under  date  of  28th  June  last,  in 


406 


Rep.  No.  669. 


relation  to  the  markers  for  this  port,  I  appointed  the  same  individuals 
wftom  I  had  before  designated  as  "  markers,"  inspectors  of  the  customs, 
(viz  :  Marcus  Sears,  Robert  Gourlay,  G.  H.  Richards,  and  Allen  M.  SnirTen,) 
all  of  whom  the  surveyor  signified  he  would  designate  as  "  markers,"  and 
which  he  accordingly  has  done,  and  it  now  only  wants  your  approval  to 
make  it  in  all  respects  legal,  as  I  now  understand  the  case.  I  do  not  con- 
sider these  gentlemen  will  be  entitled  to  compensation  in  both  capacities  of 
markers  and  inspectors,  but  they  would  probably  be  entitled  to  make  the 
election  in  which  of  the  two  capacities  they  would  receive  compensation. 

On  the  20th  of  April  I  nominated  211  day  inspectors;  since  which,  I 
have  received  the  resignations  of  the  following  persons,  viz  :  Abraham 
T.  Hillyer,  John  Johnson,  and  Robert  Walker.  To  supply  the  vacancies  oc- 
casioned thereby,  I  nominate  William  E.  Cruger,  Frederick  Groshon,  and 
Daniel  McGrath,  for  whom  I  respectfully  solicit  a  confirmation. 

In  pursuance  of  a  former  arrangement  with  you,  I  assigned  Mr.  Henry 
^Sands,  one  of  the  out-door  inspectors,  to  the  appraisers'  office,  to  assist  in 
the  appraisement  of  hardware.  He  is  very  competent  to  that  duty,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  appraisers  and  a  large  majority  of  the  merchants  in  that  trade. 
He  is  to  have  the  same  compensation  as  he  received  as  an  out-door  inspect- 
or. I  could  not  have  procured  the  same  talent  and  information  in  that 
branch  of  business  in  any  other  way,  at  so  small  an  expense.  I  desire  to 
fill  up  the  vacancy  thus  made  in  an  out-door  office  by  the  appointment  of 
Francis  Ogsbury,  whom  I  now  nominate  for  that  purpose,  and  respectfully 
request  from  you  a  confirmation. 

I  did  not  originally  nominate  for  your  approval  as  many  inspectors  into 
one  as  I  found  attached  to  the  office  when  1  came  in.  If  I  am  correct  in 
the  views  I  have  heretofore  given  you  in  relation  to  the  business  we  are  to  do 
at  this  port  for  the  remainder  of  the  year,  of  which  I  am  the  more  confirm- 
ed, I  shall  want  the  services  of  full  as  many  persons  as  have  ever  been  at- 
tached to  the  office,  and  probably  more,  for  the  reason  that  the  additional 
vigilance  that  has  recently  been  exacted  can  only  be  carried  out,  to  any 
beneficial  results,  by  a  corresponding  increase  of  labor. 

In  your  communication  of  the  31st  I  was  authorized  to  appoint  some 
night  inspectors  for  Brooklyn.  We  have  a  coast  there  of  over  two  miles, 
which  requires  watching,  and  which  ought  to  be  divided  into  three  districts. 
Upon  consultation  with  individuals  in  whose  judgment  I  have  confidence, 
it  is  stated  that  there  should  be  at  least  six  persons  designated  for  that  place. 
I  have  selected  the  following  persons  for  that  duty,  viz  :  Andrew  Van  Or- 
den,  jr.,  James  G.  Yates,  Michael  Colgan,  Andrew  J.  F.  Tombs,  Samuel 
Doxey,  and  William  Whittely,  and  I  solicit  your  confirmation  of  them. 

It  had  not  been  the  practice,  when  I  came  into  office,  to  keep  a  night 
watch  about  the  buildings  in  which  the  principal  offices  were  kept.  I  soon 
discovered  that  there  were  circumstances  existing  here  which  might  make 
it  as  desirable  to  procure  a  destruction  of  the  custom-house  as  it  was  the 
Treasury  building.  I  therefore  directed  that  a  night  watch  should  be  kept 
about  our  buildings,  which  took  four  men  from  the  list  of  night  inspectors 
heretofore  appointed.  I  desire  the  privilege  of  supplying  their  places  by 
the  addition  of  four  men  to  the  original  list  of  those  officers,  and  for  that 
purpose  I  nominate  the  following  persons,  viz :  Stephen  Harris,  Philip 
Doyle,  Lawrence  Langton,  and  James  Moncrief. 

I  have  received  communications  from  the  storekeeper  and  boarding  offi- 
cer of  Staten  Island,  that,  in  consequence  of  the  rumor  of  sickness  at  the 


Rep.  No.  669. 


407 


Havana,  the  quarantine  laws  will  be  very  rigidly  enforced,  and  that  it 
will  require  two  additional  night  watch  there  to  prevent  the  landing  of 
property  on  the  Long  Island  and  Jersey  shores.  A  requisition  was  made 
upon  me  for  this  purpose,  and  I  appointed  Alpha  Palmer  and  Israel  Disos- 
way  for  that  service,  and  I  ask  for  a  confirmation  of  them. 

William  Jordan,  one  of  the  night  inspectors  originally  nominated  to  you. 
died  on  the  5th  of  May,  before  he  took  up  his  warrant.  I  renominated  in 
his  place  Frederick  Roome. 

I  do  not  find  by  my  letter  book  that  I  submitted  the  nomination  for  your 
approval ;  if  I  did  not,  I  beg  now  to  do  so. 

I  send,  enclosed,  a  recapitulation. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

.  J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  July  9,  1838. 
Sir:  The  following  nominations,  submitted  in  your  letter  of  the  5th 
t     instant,  of  certain  persons  for  appointment  in  the  customs,  are  affirmed, 
>     to  wit  :  Marcus  Sears,  G.  W.  Richards,  Robert  Gourlay,  and  Allen  M. 
P     SnirTen,  as  inspectors  of  the  revenue,  or  markers.    These  officers  can  only 
be  allowed  compensation  in  the  nature  of  fees,  according  to  the  rates  pre- 
scribed by  law,  for  the  special  duties  discharged  by  them. 

As  inspectors  of  the  customs,  to  supply  certain  vacancies  and  changes 
referred  to  in  your  letter,  viz  :  William  E.  Cruger,  Frederick  Groshon, 
Daniel  McGrath,  and  Francis  Ogsbury. 

The  following  are  affirmed  as  night  watch,  or  inspectors,  to  wit  :  for 
Brooklyn,  Andrew  Van  Orden,  jr.,  Andrew  J.  F.  Tombs,  James  G.  Yates, 
Michael  Colgan,  and  William  Whittely.  For  the  custom-house  buildings 
in  New  York :  Stephen  Harris,  Philip  Doyle,  Lawrence  Langton,and  James 
Moncrief.  Night  watch,  Staten  Island :  Alpha  Palmer,  Israel  0.  Disos- 
way,  and  Frederick  Roome,  in  the  place  of  William  Jordan,  deceased. 

The  last  enumerated  officers  wiil  be  allowed  the  same  rate  of  compen- 
sation now  paid  to  those  holding  similar  situations  at  your  port. 

I  have  to  add  my  earnest  hope,  that  so  soon  as  the  public  interests  will 
permit  the  services  of  any  of  them  to  be  dispensed  with,  in  the  present 
depressed  state  of  commerce,  it  may  be  done. 

I  am,  -Sec. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  July  26,  1838. 

Sir  :  In  the  case  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  I  send  you  the  following 
papers  : 

1.  A  memorandum,  (copy,)  the  original  of  which  is  in  the  handwriting 
of  Mr.  Bleecker,  the  deputy  collector. 

2.  His  entry  by  ship  Virginia,  April  3,  1S38. 

3.  The  like  by  same  ship,  same  date. 


408  Bep.  No.  669. 

4.  The  like  by  ship  Siddons,  March  30,  1S38. 

5.  The  like  by  ship  Birmingham,  April  5,  1S38. 

]  have  no  invoices,  but  we  can  refer  to  appraisers'  book  for  some  account 
of  them. 

The  entry  for  the  15  packages  he  abducted  from  the  office. 

Yours, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  6,  1838. 
Sir  :  Since  I  wrote  you  this  morning,  in  relation  to  Mr.  Bottomly,  I 
have  understood  the  rule  in  England  to  be  different  on  this  subject  from 
what  I  supposed  it  was.  1  understand  the  exporter  there  enters  the  goods 
for  exportation  at  his  peril,  without  oath  ;  and  if  the  Government  is  not 
satisfied  with  the  valuation,  they  take  the  property  at  the  valuation,  and 
there  is  no  other  penalty  attached  to  the  transaction. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  15,  1S3S. 
Sir  :  You  may  have  heard,  before  this  reaches  you,  that  wo  have  de- 
tected at  this  office  some  extensive  frauds  upon  the  revenue  by  the  im- 
porters of  British  woollens,  as  well  as  goods  from  other  countries.  I  am 
induced  to  believe  that  frauds  are  also  practised  upon  the  revenue  of  Great 
Britain,  in  the  export  of  goods.  1  will  give  you  some  examples  that  have 
within  a  few  days  come  under  my  observation.  In  April  last  we  discov- 
ered the  frauds  alluded  to,  the  information  in  relation  to  which  did  not 
reach  England  until  after  that  time.  In  that  month  a  large  quantity  of 
woollens  were  exported  from  Liverpool,  owned  by  William  Bottomly  ; 
and  on  their  arrival  here  were  xnot  claimed,  as  the  invoices  were  made 
out  with  the  view,  no  doubt,  of  continuing  the  false  entries  ;  they  were 
therefore  sent  to  the  public  store  under  a  general  order,  no  one  appearing 
to  claim  them. 

1  have  the  cockets  by  the  Hibernia,  of  the  10th  of  March,  1S3S,  the 
Sheffield,  of  the  7th  of  March,  and  the  Orpheus,  of  the  30th  of  April.  On 
the  3d  of  March,  Leech  &  Harrison  entered  at  your  port  for  exportation 
by  the  Hibernia  19  cases  of  woollens,  valued  at  £1.205,  and  the  cocket 
numbered  by  Comptroller  4,402  ;  on  the  8th  instant  these  were  entered  at 
this  office  at  £2.356  4s.  Id. 

On  the  8th  of  March  the  same  house  entered  for  exportation,  by  the 
Sheffield,  34  boxes,  1  truss,  and  2  cases  of  woollens,  at  the  value  of  £1,392, 
number  of  cocket  4,657  ;  on  the  6th  of  August  instant  16  of  the  boxes 
were  entered  (Nos.  1,317  to  1,333)  here,  at  £2,192  16s.  6d. 

On  the  30th  of  April  the  same  house  entered  for  exportation  by  the 
Orpheus  15  boxes  of  woollens,  at  the  value  of  £975,  the  cocket  number 
by  Comptroller  2,465 ;  on  the  6th  instant  they  were  entered  at  this  office 
at  £2,120  2s.  2d., 


/ 


Rep.  No.  669. 


409 


AH  the  entries  here  are  in  the  name  of  William  Bottomly. 
I  reported  the  cases  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  suggests  that 
I  should  inform  you  of  the  facts,  to  the  end  that  you  may  make  the  com- 
munication to  the  collector  at  Liverpool,  if  you  should  deem  it  proper  and 
advisable  ;  believing  it  for  the  interest  of  both  Governments  to  preserve 
the  integrity  of  commercial  transactions. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

F.  B.  Ogden,  U.  S.  Consul,  Liverpool. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  5,  1838. 
Sir  :  Application  has  been  made  to  me  by  the  counsel  of  Messrs.  Leon 
&  Co.  for  the  privilege  of  examining  four  ca  ss  of  goods  under  seizure,  to 
the  end  that  he  may  be  prepared  for  trial.  I  think  the  request  a  reasonable 
one,  and  I  give  my  consent  to  it,  and  Mr.  Price  advises  me  to  grant  the 
privilege. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

To  the  Storekeeper,  17  Nassau  Street. 


New  York,  September  5,  1S38. 
Sir  :  At  a  meeting  of  merchants,  held  on  the  31st  of  August,  respecting 
the  change  in  the  rate  of  duties  recently  made  on  imported  articles,  the 
undersigned  were  appointed  a  committee  to  attend  to  the  subject.  We 
learn  that  duties  are  now  demanded  on  the  following  articles,  viz  : 
Silk  veils,  Silk  laces, 

Silk  gloves,  Silk  Italian  cravats, 

Silk  hosiery,  Silk  scarfs, 

Silk  galloons,  Silk  fancy  handkerchiefs, 

Silk  bindings,  Silk  braids, 

Linen  shirtkigs,  Linen  Russia  shirtings, 

Russia  linen  diaper,  Twilled  sacking. 

You  will  oblige  us  by  informing  us  by  what  law  these  new  rates  of  duty 
are  demanded,  and  whether  you  have  received  any  circular  from  the 
Treasury  Department,  directing  you  to  demand  said  duties;  and  if  yon 
have  received  any  such  circular  or  instructions,  that  you  will  favor  us  with 
a  copy  or  copies  of  the  same  at  your  earliest  convenience. 

We  are,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servants, 

ROBERT  JAFFRAY. 
C.  SWAN. 

CHARLES  BRUGIERE. 
JOHN  A.  UNDERWOOD. 
A.  WHITNEY. 
THOMAS  DENNY. 
A.  PAILLET. 
J.  GRAVILLON. 

Jesse  IIoyt,  Esq., 

Collector  of  the  Port  of  New  York. 


410 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York, 
Collector's  Office,  September  6,  18:38. 

Gentlemen  :  I  received  your  communication  of  the  5th  instant  at  a  few- 
minutes  after  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon,  and  I  had  not  therefore  the 
opportunity  to  reply  to  it  till  this  morning. 

You  inquire,  in  substance,  what  the  rate  of  duties  are  on  certain  articles 
named.  If  you  will  have  the  goodness  to  send  me  your  invoices,  and  the 
sample  of  your  goods,  I  will  refer  them  to  the  appraisers,  who  are  by  the 
law  made  the  judges  of  the  fact  in  such  cases  ;  and,  upon  the  coming  in  of 
their  report,  I  will  apply  the  law  to  the  facts,  and  if  I  am  wrong  in  the  ap- 
plication you  have  various  mocres  of  redress.  You  can,  in  the  first  place, 
appeal  to  my  superiors  in  office,  for  the  correction  of  any  errors  I  may  com- 
mit. You  can,  in  the  like  manner,  'have  recourse  to  the  courts  of  law, 
which  are  always  open  to  you  ;  and,  lastly,  you  can  apply  to  Congress,  who 
are  supposed,  on  all  occasions,  to  be  willing  to  dispense  justice  to  the  high- 
est and  the  humblest  individual  of  the  land. 

When  I  inform  you  that  I  will  pronounce  the  law  upon  . the  facts  report- 
ed by  the  appraisers,  I  mean  to  be  understood  as  sayiug  that  I  consider  the 
law  as  paramount  to  all  "  circulars,''  and  by  that  I  shall  govern  myself. 

Under  this  view  of  your  rights  and  my  duties,  I  hold  that  it  is  as  im- 
proper for  you  to  ask  for  copies  of  my  instructions  as  it  would  be  for  me 
to  ask  for  the  examination  of  your  books  of  correspondence;  for,  in  the  re- 
quest you  make,  it  is  implied  that  I  am  acting  without  authority. 

I  have  now  replied  to  such  parts  of  your  letter  as  I  am  called  upon  to 
reply  to  ;  but  I  do  not  choose  to  stop  here.  It  is  well  that  we  should  under- 
stand our  relative  positions  and  our  respective  rights  and  obligations.  I  am 
instructed,  and  without  instructions  it  would  be  my  duty,  as  a  public  servant, 
and  no  less  a  duty  than  it  is  my  pride  and  happiness,  to  give  all  possible  facili- 
ties to  the  fair  trader  in  the  transaction  of  his  business  at  this  office  ;  but  I  am 
nevertheless  entitled  to  be  treated  fairly  and  honestly  by  those  with  whom 
I  am  brought  in  contact,  and  especially  while  in  the  office  appropriated  to 
the  transaction  of  the  public  business,  and  that  those  who  come  there  to  do 
business  should  not  violate  the  common  decencies  and  proprieties  of  life. 
This  violation  has  been  committed  by  one  of  your  number,  Mr.  John  A. 
Underwood.  He  has  also,  instead  of  seeking  the  redress  1  have  pointed 
out,  made  his  appeal  through  a  violent  party  newspaper,  and  has  been  the 
cause  of  having  published  a  statement  affecting  my  official  conduct,  utterly 
untrue,  which  he  has  repeatedly  promised  to  have  corrected,  but  has  omit- 
ted to  do  it. 

By  your  association  with  such  an  individual,  I  might  assume  that  you 
sanction  his  course,  though*  from  my  personal  acquaintance  with  most  of 
you,  and  from  the  estimation  in  which  I  have  hitherto,  and  perhaps  ought 
now,  to  hold  you,  I  shall  not  do  vou  the  injustice  even  to  assume  that  you 
give  this  sanction. 

I  will  not  spare  time  or  labor  in  my  endeavors  to  promote  the  interest 
and  facilitate  the  business  of  the  merchants  of  this  city,  in  which  I  feel  a 
a  just  pride,  and  with  which  my  own  interests  are  so  deeply  involved. 

A  vast  majority  of  you  have  entered  goods  at  the  custom-house  within 
the  last  ten  days,  and  know  as  well  as  I  do  the  rate  of  duties  charged  on 
the  articles  referred  to  by  you  ;  and  you  also  know  upon  what  reasons,  and 
upon  what  authority,  these  duties  have  been  charged. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


411 


Your  letter  must  therefore  have  been  written  for  some  unexplained  ob- 
ject. I  am  led  to  think  this,  as  you  do  not  express  any  wish  to  found  an 
entry  of  goods  on  any  information  that  I  may  give  you  ;  and  as  a  personal 
application  at  the  custom-house  is  the  proper  place  to  seek  information  on 
such  a  subject,  I  decline  making  any  other  written  answer  to  your  appli- 
cation than  here  stated. 

Respectfullv,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  Robert  Jaffray, 
C.  Swan, 

Charles  Brugier, 

John  A.  Underwood, 

A.  Whitney, 

H.  Paillet, 

J.  Gravillon,  and 

Thomas  Denny. 


New  York,  September  11,  1838. 

Dear  Sir  :  Will  you  have  the  goodness  to  inform  me  what  disposition 
has  been  made  of  the  bond  forfeited  by  James  Bottomly,  or  whether  you: 
have  received  the  whole  or  any  part  of  the  amount  of  said  bond.  If  not, 
what  measures  would  you  advise  in  this  matter,  to  have  the  business  brought 
to  a  settlement  ? 

Your  compliance  will  greatly  oblige  yours,  truly, 

W.  S.  COE. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  22,  183S. 
Sir  :  I  have  not  received  an  answer  to  my  communication  of  the  15th 
instant,  and  I  now  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and 
ask  for  your  special  action  thereon.  In  the  month  of  April  I  made  two 
affidavits  in  the  case  of  James  Bottomly,  jr.,  one  alleging  that  he  had  been 
guilty  of  bribery,  and  the  other  of  perjury,  at  the  custom-house.  On  the 
affidavits  warrants  were  issued,  and  he  was  arrested.  Subsequently  it  was 
understood  that  he  had  absconded.  The  marshal  having  made  the  arrest, 
he  must  either  be  liable  for  an  escape,  or  must  produce  the  security  he  took 
on  permitting  him  to  go.  * 

I  find,  by  examination  of  the  numbers  of  the  circuit  court  of  the  United 
States,  that  on  the  2d  of  August  last  "  the  prisoner  was  called  and  did  not 
appear,  and  that  his  recognizance  was  forfeited."  This  would  show  that 
r  recognizance  was  taken,  else  it  could  not  have  been  forfeited.  If  this  be 
so,  I  ask  you  to  prosecute  that  recognizance,  or  in  some  way  to  account  for 
it.  If  the  marshal  has  received  it,  let  it  be  paid  over  to  some  one,  and  sure- 
ly the  law  must  designate  the  person  to  whom  it  should  be  paid.  If  paid 
.  into  court,  the  clerk  will  know  what  to  do  with  it ;  and  if  paid  to  the  dis- 
trict attorney,  I  think  he  would  inform  himself  as  to  the  proper  destination, 
if  he  does  not  already  know.  I  undertake  to  say  that  there  is  no  act  in  re- 
15* 


412 


Rep.  No.  669. 


lation  "  to  fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures,"  that  authorizes  the  marshal  to 
hold  the  money  for  one  moment. 

The  law  constitutes  the  collector  the  general  recipient  for  the  money  in 
such  cases,  and  he  is  responsible  to  the  Government  for  its  share,  as  well 
as  the  share  belonging  to  the  officers  of  the  customs,  if  any  such  share  there 
be.  I  instruct  you,  therefore,  as  the  legal  officer  of  the  United  States  in 
this  district,  to  take  such  steps  as  may  be  necessary  to  vindicate  the  laws  and 
the  rights  of  the  parties  interested  in  this  case. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT.  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  26,  183S. 
Sir  :  I  wrote  you  some  time  since  in  relation  to  the  cutter  Alert;  I  now 
enclose  you  a  letter  addressed  to  me  under  date  of  the  22d  instant,  from 
the  lieutenants  of  that  vessel.  I  showed  it  to  Captain  Nicoll,  who  tells  me 
it  is  all  true.  I  am  very  much  dissatisfied  with  the  conduct  of  Captain 
Bicker  in  relation  to  orders  1  have  lately  given  him.  The  light  ship 
stationed  off  Sandy  Hook  parted  her  moorings  in  the  late  gale,  and  lost 
the  whole  of  them,  which  are  worth  $4,000,  and  cannot  be  replaced  in 
this  country.  I  thought  they  could  be  recovered,  and  detached  Lieutenant 
Frazer,  of  the  Alert,  and  Mr.  Taylor,  the  pilot,  to  take  two  small  vessels 
and  go  in  search  of  the  moorings  ;  the  former  volunteering  to  go,  and  as  • 
suring  me  that  he  could  recover  them.  The  vessels  went  as  far  as  the 
Hook,  and  I  ordered  the  cutter  down  to  assist.  Captain  Bicker  sent  back 
the  ships,  and  in  a  day  or  two  came  back  himself  with  the  cutter.  I  direct- 
ed him  to  report,  in  writing,  which  he  did,  and  I  now  send  you  the  report, 
but  it  isnot  satisfactory  to  me.  I  wrote  to  New  Haven,  and  directed  the 
cutter  Rush  to  come  down  and  go  upon  the  same  ground.  After  I  had 
done  this,  and  after  I  had  directed  a  report,  in  writing,  I  received  the  en- 
closed note  from  Captain  Bicker,  under  date  of  the  24th  instant.  The 
weather  has  since  been  so  bad  that  I  could  not  expect  them  to  do  much, 
if  any  thing,  in  the  object  I  directed  them  to  pursue. 

The  truth  is,  the  cutter  service,  as  at  present  organized,  is  of  no  use, 
and  every  day's  experience  satisfies  me  of  the  fact;  and  I  am  especially 
induced  at  this  moment  to  say  so,  from  a  fact  stated  to  me  to-day  by  a 
gentleman  who  accompanied  you  yesterday  to  Amboy.  I  had  a  verbal 
conversation  on  this  subject  with  you,  when  you  passed  through  the  city 
for  the  East.  I  have  directed  Captain  Nicoll  to  make  an  estimate,  or  to 
procure  one  to  be  made,  of  the  relative  expenses  of  supporting  a  steam 
cutter,  when  compared  with  those  now  in  service. 

He  states  to  me  that  the  schooner  Active,  recently  sold  by  the  Govern- 
ment at  a  low  price,  would  make  a  fine  cutter.  I  have  directed  him  to  in- 
quire at  what  price  she  can  now  be  bought.  As  to  these  points  I  will 
inform  you  in  a  day  or  two. 

Respectfullv,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodrury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669.  413 

Custom-House,  New  York,  October  1,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  received  this  morning  the  enclosed  report  and  request  from  Capt. 
Bicker,  of  the  cutter  Alert,  and  I  submit  it  for  your  direction.  I  expected, 
ere  this,  a  report  from  Captain  Nicoll  in  regard  to  the  schooner  Active,  re- 
cently sold  by  the  Government,  and  also  in  relation  to  the  steamboat  for 
cutter  service.    I  have  not  yet  received  a  report  from  him. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  1,  1S38. . 
Sir  :  The  enclosed  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  [  received  this  morning  from  the 
appraisers'  office. 

I  should  not  hesitate,  and  indeed  I  agreed  to  raise  the  salaries  before  I 
ascertained  that  the  power  was  with  you,  under  the  6th  section  of  the  act 
of  1S30.  I  have  no  doubt  of  the  policy  and  justice  of  the  measure.  I 
exact  further  labors  and  duties  than  heretofore  bestowed,  by  reason  of 
what  I  conceive  to  be  an  improved  form  of  doing  business  at  the  apprais- 
ers' store. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  4,  1838. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  favor  of  the  1st  instant,  in  relation  to  the  course  adopt- 
ed by  the  marshal  concerning  the  money  he  has  collected  on  the  recogni- 
zance of  James  Bottomly,  jr. 

As  the  representative  of  the  United  States  in  this  collection  district,  I 
thought  it  my  duty  to  see  that  the  laws  are  executed,  and  that,  too,  with  as 
little  delay  and  expense  as  the  nature  of  the  case  would  justify;  and 
therefore,  when  there  is  no  necessity  or  propriety  in  the  moneys  collected 
by  the  marshal  in  this  district  passing  through  the  hands  of  every  person 
attached  to  the  United  States  court,  all  and  each  of  whom  clip  off  a  re- 
spectable proportion,  I  will  object  to  it. 

I  have  never  till  now  had  a  doubt  suggested  that  "all  fines,  penalties, 
and  forfeitures,  recovered  by  virtue  of  this  act,"  as  referred  to  in  the  91st 
section  of  the  act  of  1799,  embraced  a  case  like  the  one  now  under  con- 
sideration. It  is  not  intimated  that  the  fund  is  "otherwise  appropriated." 
There  is  nothing  in  that  section  that  requires  the  money  to  pass  through 
the  court;  and  the  word  "recovered"  has  a  different  signification  from 
the  same  word  in  the  89th  section  :  in  the  latter  it  is  used  in  connexion 
with  the  word  "prosecuted."  You  seem  to  suppose  that  the  court  will 
"make  the  proper  distribution,  and  direct  the  payment  of  the  share, to  all 
the  parties."    The  court,  as  I  understand  it,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the 


414  Rep.  No.  669. 

distribution.  The  law  does  this  through  the  collector,  and  not  the  court 
through  its  officers. 

It  is  quite  a  novel  thing  in  this  part  of  the  country  for  the  marshal  to 
make  application  to  the  court  in  a  case  of  this  kind,  as  he  has  given  me 
notice  he  should  do.  We  thought  it  the  duty  of  the  district  attorney,  as 
the  law  officer  of  the  Government  in  this  district,  to  see  that  this  fund 
reached  the  destination  pointed  out  by  the  law  ;  and  if  it  was  to  pass  through 
the  court,  and  the  marshal  did  not  pay  it  over  to  the  clerk,  that  he  must 
either  rule  him  to  return  the  process  under  which  the  money  was  collected, 
or  to  take  the  proper  proceedings  for  an  attachment  against  him,  to  compel 
him  to  deposite  it  with  the  clerk. 

If  it  was  not  to  go  through  the  court,  then  it  might  be  his  duty  to  com- 
mence a  suit  to  recover  the  money,  or  to  report  him  to  the  Executive  de- 
partment as  a  defaulter. 

I  am  thus  particular  in  giving  my  views  as  to  the  duties  of  the  district 
attorney,  for  I  have  directed  him  to  take  the  proper  measures  to  have  the 
question  settled  before  the  marshal  wrote  to  yon  upon  the  subject. 

I  do  not  think  the  United  States  or  the  collector  are  as  great  favorites 
with  the  courts  as  its  own  officers  are;  and  I  had  determined  to  have  the 
question  settled  with  the  least  possible  delay,  having  no  doubt  it  was  the 
duty  of  the  marshal  to  pay  over  the  money  to  the  collector. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Esq. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  5,  1838. 
Gentlemen  :  You  are  requested  to  attend  a  meeting  to-morrow  morn- 
ing at  the  collector's  office,  at  half  past  nine  o'clock,  of  the  appraisers  and 
collector,  who  are  authorized  to  adjudicate  on  linen  cases. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  John  Graham  &  Co.,  New  York. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  9,  1838. 
Sir:  I  have  this  moment  heard  that  it  is  the  intention  of  Mr.  James 
Campbell,  a  former  deputy  in  this  office,  to  go  to  Europe  in  the  Garrick, 
which  is  to  sail  on  the  24th  instant.    I  would  suggest  that  you  put  him 
under  heavy  bonds  immediately. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  Collector's  Office, 

New  York,  October  9,  1838. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  7th  instant  I  received  this  morning.    I  take 
checks  at  this  office  upon  all  the  banks  in  this  city,  and  ninety-nine 


Rep.  No.  669. 


415 


hundredths  of  our  receipts  are  in  checks.  I  am  not  able  to  tell  you  how 
many  or  what  of  our  city  banks  have  "  issued  or  paid  bills"  under  the 
denomination  of  $5  since  the  1st  day  of  October.  I  understood  that  most 
of  them  contemplated  not  to  issue  or  pay  out  such  bills.  We  take  no  bills 
of  banks  out  of  this  city. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  H.  Ellis,  Esq., 

Collector,  New  Haven. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  11,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  wish  you  to  commence  another  suit  against  Samuel  R.  Wood, 
and  hold  him  to  bail  in  the  sum  of  $5,000. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  17,  1838. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  have  your  favor  of  the  20th  ultimo,  and  I  thank  you  for  the 
information  given.  I  had,  however,  before  its  receipt,  received  an  intima- 
tion of  the  character  of  the  transactions  alluded  to,  and  had  arrested  Mr. 
S.  R.  Wood,  and  held  him  to  bail  in  the  sum  of  $5,000.  There  are  many 
others  who  have  done  business  in  a  similar  way,  and  they  are  all  known 
at  this  office,  and  will  be  hereafter  narrowly  watched. 

You  will  see  by  the  papers  that  Whigery  in  this  country  is  very  much 
done  up. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

F.  B.  Ogden,  Esq., 

U.  S.  Consul,  Liverpool. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  17,  1838. 

Sir:  I  have  your  communication  of  this  day,  in  relation  to  Mr.  S.R.Wood. 

On  the  25th  of  September,  I  sent  you  the  papers  on  which  the  first  suit 
Was  commenced,  and  when  I  directed  the  other  one  to  be  commenced.  I 
took  it  for  granted  the  law  officer  of  the  Government  would  obey  the  in- 
structions, and  put  the  responsibility  where  it  belongs.  I  am  not  sure  that 
you  can  now  arrest  him,  but  if  you  will  do  so,  I  will  be  much  obliged  to 
you ;  and  1  think  we  can  recover  in  both  cases  : 

1.  Because  we  had  no  knowledge  of  the  extent  of  the  indebtedness 
when  the  first  suit  was  commenced. 

2.  Because  it  arises  out  of  ditferent  transactions.  If  I  hold  two  notes 
against  you,  I  have  two  cases  of  action,  and  am  not  obliged  to  include 
them  both  in  one  suit.    So  in  the  present  case,  indebtedness  arises  out  of 


416 


Rep.  No.  669. 


fifteen  different  entries,  made  at  the  custom-house  on  different  invoices, 
goods,  ships,  &.C. 

I  am  sure  I  am  right;  but  if  not,  I  will  take  the  responsibility. 

If  you  choose,  however,  you  may  discontinue,  and  include  the  whole  in 
one  suit;  but  a  discontinuance  is  not  necessary,  until  pleaded;  and  there- 
fore do  not  discontinue  the  one  until  he  is  arrested  on  the  other. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  M.  Price,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  20,  1S38. 

Sir:  I  enclose  you  a  letter,  invoice,  &c,  from  Messrs.  Gebhard  &  Co., 
asking  for  permission  to  enter  the  goods  referred  to,  without  consular  cer- 
tificate to  the  invoice. 

I  do  not  forward  the  usual  certificate,  but  I  send  you  a  letter  I  received 
from  the  consul  at  Antwerp,  referring  to  the  case. 

The  persons  there  know  the  law  as  well  as  we  do;  and  if  they  do  not 
comply  with  it,  the  prima  facie  evidence  is,  that  fraud  was  intended. 

I  cannot  give  the  accustomed  certificate. 

Be  pleased  to  return  me  the  letter  of  the  consul. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  October  24,  1S38. 

Sir:  Upon  examination  of  the  case,  presented  in  your  letter  of  the  20th 
instant,  respecting  the  invoices  of  window  glass  consigned  to  Messrs.  Geb- 
hard &  Co.,  of  your  port,  the  cost  of  which  is  not  verified  by  a  consular 
certificate,  I  have  to  observe  that,  as  window  glass  pays  a  specific  duty  of 
so  much  per  hundred  square  feet,  the  fact  of  the  cost  not  being  sworn  to 
could  not,  it  is  thought,  of  itself  raise  a  suspicion  of  fraud.  But  should 
there  seem  to  be,  upon  inspection,  a  difference  between  the  quantity  con- 
tained in  the  boxes  and  that  described  in  the  invoices,  then  the  suspicion 
would  attach  of  an  intended  fraud. 

If,  therefore,  no  other  objection  than  the  one  before  stated  exists  in  these 
cases,  the  entries  may  be  made  upon  taking  the  usual  bonds  to  produce, 
hereafter,  consular  certificates  in  reference  to  the  cost  of  the  articles  in 
question. 

The  invoices  transmitted,  together  with  the  letter  from  the  American 
consul  at  Antwerp,  are  herewith  returned. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq., 

Collector  of  the  Port  of  New  York. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


41? 


Washington,  November  15,  1838. 
Dear  Sir  :  1  have  received  your  several  letters  in  respect  to  the  defal- 
cation of  your  predecessor,  and  an  official  report  on  a  part  of  the  transac- 
tion, made  by  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury.    They  reflect  great  credit  on 
your  vigilance. 

At  this  moment,  I  have  but  one  suggestion  to  make  in  respect  to  the 
matter,  which  may  be  useful  to  the  public  as  well  as  yourself. 

If  any  of  the  clerks  or  other  officers,  still  employed  at  the  custom-house, 
knew  of  Mr.  Swartwout's  false  returns  and  speculations,  and  yet  did  not 
communicate  the  facts  to  this  Department,  ought  they  not  to  beat  once  re- 
moved? Can  any  justification  exist,  however  amiable  and  competent  they 
may  be,  to  confide  your  own  or  the  public  interests  to  them  hereafter? 

Excuse  me  for  inciting  attention  to  this  point  early,  and  believe  "me  re- 
spectfully, &c. 

,^EVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq. 


New  York,  November  17,  1838. 
Sir  :  As  I  am  about  to  enter  into  some  business  in  this  city,  I  beg 
leave  to  tender  you  my  resignation  as  clerk  in  your  office. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

HENRY  OGDEN. 


J.  Hoyt,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  17,  1838. 

Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  15th  instant,  stating  that  you  had  received  an 
official  report  from  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  on  a  part  of  the  transac- 
tions concerning  a  defalcation  of  my  predecessor  in  office,  and  suggesting 
that  if  any  of  the  clerks  or  other  officers,  still  employed  in  this  department, 
knew  the  fact,  and  the  false  returns  made  by  Mr.  Swartwout,  that  they 
ought  to  be  removed,  was  received  by  me  this  morning. 

The  investigation  was  closed  last  evening,  so  far  as  examinations  in 
this  office  extend,  by  the  Comptroller  and  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  aided 
by  Mr.  Underwood,  a  clerk  in  the  First  Auditor's  office;  but  the  exact  na- 
ture of  their  report  I  am  not  informed  of,  though  I  lost  no  time,  after  the 
closing  of  the  investigation,  to  ask  their  opinions  as  to  the  persons  now  in 
this  office  who  seemed  to  be  implicated  in  the  affair,  and  took  immediate 
measures  to  carry  out  your  anticipated  suggestions,  and  these  measures 
will  be  completed  at  the  earliest  moment. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


418 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  17,  1S38. 

Gentlemen  :  It  appears,  by  the  proceedings  published  in  the  New  Era 
of  this  morning,  that  you  were  actors  in  a  meeting  held  on  Wednesday 
evening  last,  at  the  Vauxhall  garden,  "  in  favor  of  Canadian  reform." 

You  cannot  be  ignorant  that  the  Government  of  this  country  has  given 
every  assurance  to  that  of  Great  Britain  of  its  disposition  and  determina- 
tion to  pursue  its  neutral  relations  in  the  contest  which  has  been  going  on 
between  a  certain  portion  of  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain,  in  the  Canadian 
provinces,  and  the  mother  country.  The  sincerity  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  in  these  assurances,  has  not  been  questioned  by  those 
who  are  disposed  to  do  it  justice  ;  and  it  is  alike  important  and  proper 
that  nothing  should  occur  to  give  reason  for  making  it  in  the  least  doubt- 
ful, and  therefore  it  is  that  I  request  you,  as  persons  holding  office  on  my 
nomination  under  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  to  say  to  me,  in 
writing,  whether  the  report  of  the  proceedings  of  that  meeting,  so  far  as 
your  names  are  concerned,  be  correct.  It  is  perhaps  proper  for  me  to 
suggest,  as  it  may  not  have  occurred  to  you,  that,  if  officers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment take  active  parts  in  proceedings  of  that  character,  grounds  will  be 
afforded  for  unjust  imputations  upon  the  administration  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  the  unfounded  inference  may  be  drawn  that  the  administration 
sanctions  those  proceedings. 

Under  such  circumstances,  without  feeling  any  desire  to  control  in  the 
slightest  degree  your  sympathies  or  opinions  on  this  or  any  other  subject, 
I  must  request  you,  if  it  is  true  that  you  have  taken  any  part  in  the  pro- 
ceedings referred  to,  to  desist  in  future  from  connecting  yourselves  with 
them,  in  any  manner,  so  long  as  yon  maintain  your  present  relations  to  me 
as  a  public  officer. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  Thomas  P.  Walworth,) 

Alex.  Ming,  Jr.,  and     V  U.  S.  Gangers. 
Henry  E.  Riell,  3 
Joseph  Hopkins,  U.  S.  Measurer. 


New  York,  November  17,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  herewith  resign  my  situation  as  clerk  in  your  office,  with  my 
best  wishes  for  your  health  and  prosperity. 

I  remain,  &c. 

J.  PHILLIPS. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


en 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  17,  1838. 
Sir:  You  were  for  many  years  deputy  naval  officer  of  this  port.  Will 
you  be  so  good  as  to  inform  me,  in  writing,  the  manner  in  which  ac- 
counts were  kept  in  that  office,  so  as  to  operate  as  a  check  upon  the  fiscal 


Rep.  Iso.  669. 


419 


accounts  of  the  collector,  with  such  other  suggestions  as  your  experience 
in  that  office  will  enable  you  to  offer? 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  T.  Ferguson,  Deputy  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  19,  1838. 
Sir  :  I  this  day  sent  to  certain  persons  who  hold  office  under  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States,  on  my  nomination,  a  letter,  of  which  I  en- 
close you  a  copy.  It  is  my  intention  to  send  a  copy  of  the  letter  to  Mr- 
Stevenson,  at  London,  by  the  Great  Western,  which  will  sail  on  Thursday, 
in  exculpation  of  my  own  conduct. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  John  Forsyth, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  19,  1838. 

Sir  :  So  much  anxiety  is  felt  here  for  the  safety  of  the  steamer  Liver- 
pool, I  have  felt  it  my  duty  to  endeavor  to  send  our  revenue  cutter  to  sea, 
as  quickly  as  she  can  be  got  ready,  to  cruise  between  this  and  the  banks, 
on  the  chance  of  finding  said  steamer  contending  against  the  winds,  with- 
out fuel  remaining. 

The  cutter  will  have  an  extra  quantity  of  provisions,  and  will  assist,  in 
every  possible  way,  if  she  should  happily  fall  in  with  the  steamer. 

It  may  suggest  itself  to  you  that  the  cutter  in  your  port  might  be  well 
employed,  if  not  otherwise  wanting,  on  a  similar  errand. 

The  Liverpool,  I  understand,  has  a  very  valuable  cargo  on  board,  as 
well  as  nearly  sixty  passengers ;  and  among  other  passengers  are  Mr. 
John  Van  Buren,  the  second  son  of  the  President,  and  the  oldest  son  of 
Mr.  Butler,  the  late  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States. 

Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

George  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Collector  of  Boston. 


New  York,  November  21,  1838. 
Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  17th  in- 
stant, requesting  me,  as  one  of  "  your  nominated  officers  of  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States,  to  state  to  you,  in  writing,  whether  the  report 
of  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  held  on  Wednesday  evening  last,  at 
Vauxhall  garden,  in  favor  of  Canadian  reform,  as  -published  in  the  New 
Era,  so  far  as  my  name  was  concerned,  be  correct to  which  I  have  the 
honor  to  reply,  that  I  was  not  at,  and  did  not  take  any  part  in  that  meet- 
ing, nor  did  I  authorize  it ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  unequivocally  declined 
signing  the  call  for  such  meeting. 


420 


Rep.  No.  669. 


My  private  opinion,  or  sympathy,  not  having  been  called  in  question  on 
this  subject,  I  shall  not  intrude  upon  your  attention  the  deep  interest  I  feel 
for  the  general  success  of  those  who  strike  for  freedom. 

I  am,  &c. 

JOSEPH  HOPKINS. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  21,  1S38. 

Sir  :  I  send  you  the  Evening  Post,  which  announces  the  changes  in  the 
cashier's  department  in  this  office.  Mr.  Waters  is  a  man  of  high  character, 
and  for  many  years  was  comptroller  of  this  city,  and  enjoyed,  to  an  unlim- 
ited extent,  public  confidence.  I  could  not  command  such  character  and 
capacity  without  paying  for  it.  He  left  a  place  where  he  was  receiving 
a  salary  of  $3,000 ;  and  I  was  compelled  to  agree  to  give  him  the  same 
compensation,  which  I  trust  you  will  ratify,  from  public  considerations,  as 
well  as  from  what  is  due  to  me,  whose  responsibilities  are  so  large.  The 
appointment  meets  with  the  approbation  of  your  prominent  friends  in  this 
city,  as  well  as  the  friends  of  the  administration.  He  is  a  republican,  and 
enjoys  the  confidence  of  all  parties. 

The  gentleman  (Mr.  Bleecker)  I  announce  as  assistant  cashier  I  have 
made  no  arrangement  with,  for  it  did  not  occur  to  me  to  select  him  until 
12  o'clock  to-day;  and,  as  he  was  sick  and  at  home,  I  contented  myself 
by  sending  to  him  what  I  should  do.  I  was  so  anxious  to  make  the  whole 
announcement  at  this  moment,  that  I  took  the  course  I  have ;  and  if  I  am 
compelled  to  change  it,  I  can  do  it  in  a  quiet  way. 

Respectfullv,  &c. 

j.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary,  fyc. 

P.  S.  I  did  not  get  the  whole  affair  settled  in  time  to  get  the  notice  in  the 
whole  edition  of  the  paper. 

J.  H. 


Treasury  Department,  November  22,  1838. 
Sir:  In  regard  to  the  inquiry  made  in  your  letter  of  the  21st  instant, respect- 
ing the  salary  of  a  clerk  to  perform  the  duties  of  cashier  in  the  custom- 
house, 1  have  to  remark,  that  the  first  proviso  contained  in  the  appropria- 
tion act  of  the  7th  of  July  last  (3d  section)  prohibits  any  officer  receiving, 
under  that  act,  a  '•'  greater  salary  or  compensation  than  was  paid  to  such 
officer  for  the  year  1S32."  If,  therefore,  the  emoluments  of  your  office, 
during  the  year,  will  prove  adequate  to  compensate  your  officers  without 
having  resort  to  the  relief  afforded  by  the  act  of  July  last,  the  compensa- 
tion you  allude  to  can  be  allowed,  but  not  otherwise.  It  is  hoped,  how- 
ever, that  a  suitable  person  can  be  obtained  at  a  less  compensation  than 
£3,000. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


421 


[Private.] 

Custom-House,  Collector's  Office, 

New  York,  November  21,  1838. 

Sir  :  You  are,  no  doubt,  aware  that,  by  virtue  of  the  office  I  hold,  I 
have  the  power  to  nominate,  for  approval  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, the  gaugers,  measurers,  and  certain  other  revenue  officers,  for  the 
port  of  New  York.  I  have  exercised  that  power,  and  nominated  various 
individuals  for  these  stations,  which  the  Secretary,  more  than  six  months 
since,  approved  of,  as  he  has,  from  the  foundation  of  the  Government,  been 
in  the  habit  of  doing.  Among  these  individuals  are  to  be  found  three  or 
four  persons  who  it  is  alleged  have  taken  part  in  certain  proceedings  in 
this  city,  purporting  to  be  in  favor  of  what  is  called  "  Canadian  reform." 

The  proceedings  alluded  to  appeared  for  the  first  time,  so  far  as  I  know, 
in  a  newspaper,  published  in  this  city,  called  the  "  New  Era,"  on  the 
morning  of  the  17th  instant,  a  copy  of  which  paper  I  send  you  herewith. 
When  I  received  that  paper,  I  addressed  to  such  of  the  persons  belonging 
to  this  office  as  appeared  by  those  proceedings  to  have  taken  a  part 
therein  a  letter,  a  copy  of  which  I  also  send  you,  by  which  you  will  perceive 
that  I  very  plainly  intimate  to  them,  that  if  they  do  not  desist  in  future  from 
all  association  with  the  individuals  who  are  engaged  in  "  the  Canadian 
reform,"  as  it  is  called,  I  shall  be  under  the  necessity  of  removing  them 
from  the  offices  they  hold.  I  am  induced  to  make  to  you  this  statement,  for 
the  reason  that  it  may  net  come  to  you  in  any  other  form,  from  the  fact 
that  the  occurrence  is  of  so  recent  an  origin  that  you  may  not  be  advised  of 
it  from  any  other  source ;  and  for  the  further  reason,  that  the  opposition  to 
the  administration  of  the  Government  is  of  that  character  that  even  the 
conduct  of  so  humble  an  individual  as  myself  may  be  so  misrepresented  as 
to  create  a  belief  in  certain  quarters,  contrary  to  the  truth  of  the  case,  that 
the  administration  takes  no  measures  to  prevent  its  subordinate  officers  from 
interfering  in  matters  with  which  they  have  no  right  to  meddle,  to  the 
prejudice  of  the  friendly  relations  which  this  Government  holds  in  the  mat- 
ters referred  to,  and  which  it  is  most  anxious  to  make  manifest.  I  am 
iurther  prompted  to  make  this  communication,  from  remarks  that  have  ap- 
peared in  certain  opposition  newspapers  in  this  city  on  the  subject  alluded  to, 
which  are  entirely  false,  but  exhibit  a  design  to  make  the  administration 
responsible  for  my  acts,  and  for  the  acts  of  those  still  more  subordinate, 
concerning  whom  a  thousand  absurd  stories  were  propagated  during  the 
heated  election  which  has  just  terminated,  and  which  would  probably  not 
have  been  stated  on  any  other  occasion,  and  only  now  for  a  paltry  political 
effect. 

I  was  informed  a  day  or  two  since,  by  Mr.  Matthew  L.  Davis,  whom 
you  know  by  reputation,  if  not  personally,  and  who  writes  the  letters  from 
this  country  for  the  London  Times,  under  the  signature  of  a  "  General 
Traveller,"  that  he  should  write  to  London  by  the  Great  Western,  (which 
takes  this,)  that  the  administration  were  not  sincere  in  their  profession  on 
the  subject  of  the  revolt  in  Canada ;  and,  as  a  proof  of  it,  he  cited  the  case 
of  the  three  or  four  persons  in  the  custom-house  to  whom  I  addressed  the 
letter.  The  authority  of  such  an  individual  you  know  how  to  estimate; 
and,  from  the  statement  I  make,  you  can  judge  of  the  soundness  of  the 
premises  from  which  he  draws  such  important  conclusions.  I  write  this, 
as  you  will  readily  perceive,  to  put  you  in  possession  of  facts  that  it  may 


422 


Rep.  No.  669. 


be  well  for  yon  to  know,  but  without  the  sanction  or  authority  of  any  ont 
I  send  with  this  a  few  of  the  latest  papers. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

His  Excellency  Andrew  Stevenson, 

Minister,  §c,  London, 


New  York,  November  22,  1838. 

■Sir  :  In  compliance  with  the  request,  which  you  make  in  your  letter  ad 
dressed  to  us  on  the  17th  instant,  that  "  we  will  say,  in  writing,  whether  thai 
published  report  of  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  held  at  Vauxhall  gar- 
den, in  favor  of  Canadian  reform,  be  correct,  so  far  as  our  names  are  con-i 
cemed,"  we  return  a  written  answer  in  the  affirmative. 

But  upon  the  reason  you  assign  for  making  this  request,  namely,  "  thall 
the  sincerity  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  in  its  assurances  to 
that  of  Great  Britain  of  its  disposition  and  determination  to  preserve  its 
neutral  relations  in  the  Canadian  contest,  has  never  been  questioned  by, 
those  who  are  disposed  to  do  it  justice,  and  that  it  is  alike  important  and 
proper  that  nothing  should  occur  to  give  reason  for  making  it  in  the  least 
doubtful, "  we  respectfully  remark  that  we  should  be  extremely  sorry  to 
discover  that  any  act  of  ours  has  had  the  slightest  tendency  to  such  result. 

If  our  official  duties  to  the  Government  were  such  as  in  any  way  to  en- 
dow  us  with  authority  and  ability  to  preserve  its  neutral  relations  with  a 
foreign  Power,  we  trust  that  our  sincerity  will  not  be  doubted  when  we 
say  that  they  would  be  faithfully  and  zealously  devoted  to  that  object. 
But  our  official  duties  being  limited  to  the  gauging  and  measuring  of  cer- 
tain articles  of  merchandise,  we  do  not  conceive  that  they  impose  any 
greater  restriction  upon  our  acts,  opinions,  or  feelings,  in  relation  to  other 
matters,  than  they  do  upon  those  of  any  other  class  of  citizens.  If  we 
faithfully  perform  those  duties  which  the  Government  assigns  to  us,  we 
presume  that  we  discharge  our  official  obligations,  and  stand  free  in  refer- 
ence to  all  others,  as  a  part  of  the  people  at  large. 

The  right  of  the  people  of  this  republic  to  express  their  opinions  and 
feelings  on  all  subjects  whatsoever  we  hold  sacred  with  regard  to  ourselves ; 
and  when  you  say  that  you  feel  no  desire  to  control  this  right  in  the  slight- 
est degree,  we  consider  that  you  do  but  justice  to  yourself  as  a  republican 
citizen.  When,  therefore,  you  add  a  request  that  we  will  hereafter  desist 
from  taking  any  part  in  proceedings  like  those  to  which  you  refer,  so  long 
as  we  maintain  our  present  relations  to  you  as  public  officers,  we  can  only 
recognise  it  as  an  appeal  to  our  courtesy  and  friendship  toward  you  per- 
sonally, and  as  such  we  assure  you  that  we  deem  it  entitled  to  our  con- 
sideration. 

We  are,  sir.  &c. 

THOMAS  P.  WALWORTH, 
ALEXANDER  MING,  Jr., 
HENRY  E.  RIELL, 

United  States  Gangers. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Kep.  No.  669. 


423 


New  York,  November  23,  1838. 

Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  copy  of  a  private  letter  I  sent  this  day  by  the  Great 
Western  to  Mr.  Stevenson,  at  London.  It  may  be  deemed  an  act  of  superer- 
ogation in  me  to  write  to  that  gentleman  on  a  subject  of  the  kind  alluded 
to  ;  but  the  reason  for  doing  so  you  will  see  stated  in  the  letter.  I  may 
farther  remark  to  you,  that  all  sorts  of  fabrications  have  been  written  to 
Europe  by  this  vessel  on  that  subject,  to  say  nothing  of  the  infamous  pub- 
lications that  have  been  issued  by  the  opposition  press,  all  of  which  will 
reach  the  eyes  and  the  ears  of  the  British  ministry  through  distorted  chan- 
nels, for  no  higher  or  purer  motives  than  to  make  mischief. 

I  had  great  doubts  as  to  the  propriety  of  sending  the  letter  to  Mr.  Sieven- 
son,  lest  it  might  be  considered  by  you  and  the  President  an  unwarrantable 
interference  on  my  part  with  matters  that  belonged  exclusively  to  the  Ex- 
ecutive. In  my  doubts  upon  it,  I  submitted  the  letter  last  evening  to  Mr. 
Price,  and  we  concluded,  as  it  was  but  a  private  letter,  and  inasmuch  as  it 
DUt  Mr.  Stevenson  in  possession  of  facts  that  might  be  useful,  and  no  harm*' 
:ould  grow  out  of  it,  the  better  course  was  to  send  it,  and  especially  as  there 
kvas  not  time  to  hear  from  you  in  answer  to  rny  letter  of  the  19th  instant 
before  the  sailing  of  the  Great  Western. 

If  I  have  committed  an  error,  you  will  do  me  the  justice  to  attribute  it  to 
\  he  right  motives. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT. 

M :  Hon.  John  Forsyth, 

Secretary  of  State. 

tl-  • 


Custom-House,  Collector's  Office, 

New  York,  November  26,  1838. 
Sir  :  As  you  will  leave  here  in  a  few  days  for  your  seat  in  Congress,  I 
;  ieg  the  favor  that  you  will  call  at  this  office  before  you  leave,  and  make  an 
xamination  into  the  forms  of  transacting  the  public  business  in  this  de- 
:;.  tartment. 

To  enable  you  to  make  that  examination  with  facility,  I  will  state  the 
>rder  in  which  the  business  is  done,  so  far  as  it  relates  to  the  securing  the 
luties  of  the  United  States  on  the  importation  of  merchandise.  When  the 
inporter  comes  to  the  office  to  enter  his  goods,  he  brings  with  him,  in  or- 
linary  cases,  the  following  papers  : 
jjj  1.  His  bills  of  lading,  showing  the  shipment  of  the  goods  and  the  own- 
rship. 

2.  His  invoice  of  the  goods. 
V.    3.  His  entry,  prepared  before  he  comes  to  this  office. 
These  papers  he  presents — 

1.  To  the  entry  clerk,  who  sees  that  the  person  claiming  to  enter  the 
;oods  shows  the  right  to  make  the  entry  and  to  acquire  the  possession  of  the 
►roperty,  which  is  commonly  established  through  the  bill  of  lading  and  in- 
oice  ;  and  if  he  shows  that  right,  the  clerk  compares  the  invoice  and  entry, 
o  see  if  the  goods  are  correctly  arranged  on  the  entry,  and  if  so,  attaches 
he  proper  oath,  filled  up,  to  the  entry,  on  which  he  puts  his  initials,  and 
nakes  out  a  free  or  dutiable  permit,  puts  the  custom-house  stamp  on  the 
nvoice,  with  the  name  of  the  vessel  thereon  written,  and  computes  the  du~ 


424  Rep.  No.  669. 


ties  on  the  entry  at  the  proper  rate,  as  the  case  may  require,  and  hands  th 
permit,  with  all  the  papers  presented  to  him,  to  the  importer  again,  wh.  J 
then  goes — 

2.  To  the  collector  or  deputy  collector,  and  presents  all  the  papers  to  hirr: 
who  then  examines  them,  and  requires  the  importer  to  sign  the  oath  fillei  I 
up  by  the  clerk,  and  he  then  administers  the  oath  to  the  importer,  whj  1 
swears  to  the  truth  of  the  entry,  &c. 

He  then  designates  the  package  or  packages  to  be  sent  to  the  appraisers 
store  for  examination,  and  that  designation  is  made  on  the  back  of  the  oatlf  J 
and  on  the  invoice,  and  also  on  the  permit.  i  ! 

3.  rflie  importer  then  takes  the  permit,  the  invoice,  and  entry,  to  th* 
naval  officer,  where  he  deposites  a  duplicate  of  the  entry,  and  procures  th( 
invoice  to  be  checked  and  the  permit  to  be  signed,  and  returns  and  depos 
ites  the  original  entry  and  permit  with  what  is  called  the  order  clerk  ir 
tjie  collector's  office,  which  order  clerk  makes  an  order  to  send  the  desig-i 
nated  packages  to  the  appraisers'  store  for  examination. 

The  order  is  taken  by  the  merchant  on  board  the  vessel,  and  delivered  tc 
the  inspector  onboard,  who  sends  the  packages  to  the  appraisers'  store,  i 
This  statement  applies  to  the  case  of  a  person  taking  only  the  goods  which1  | 
are  sent  for  examination  ;  but  if  the  merchant  wants  all  the  goods  in  the]  j 
invoice  at  his  own  store,  for  immediate  sale,  he  gives,  under  the  act  of  Con-!  <| 
gress,  a  penal  bond,  and  takes  to  his  own  store  the  goods  not  sent  to  the1! 
public  store.    In  the  latter  case,  the  proceedings  are  thus,  viz  : 

After  leaving  the  naval  office,  he  goes  to  the  bond  clerk,  and  executes,]! 
with  his  surety,  a  penal  bond,  under  the  4th  section  of  the  act  of  1830,  when- 1 
the  bond  clerk  puts  his  check  on  the  permit ;  and  if  it  be  a  cash  duty,  them 
merchant  then  takes  the  permit  and  entry  to  the  cashier's  office,  and  pays  the1  j 
duty,  and  gets  the  cashier's  check  on  the  entry  and  permit,and  the  entry  is  leftjf 
in  the  cashier's  possession  ;  but,  if  the  duty  is  to  be  secured  by  bond,  the  mer-jr 
chant  executes  a  bond  for  the  duty  at  the  same  time  he  executes  the  penal j|" 
bond,  and  the  entry  is  checked  by  the  bond  clerk,  and  retained  byhim,and  he :  | 
checks  the  permit, and  hands  it  to  the  merchant,  who  then  goes  to  the  collector J I 
or  deputy  collector,  and  gets  the  permit  signed,  and  then  the  merchant  takes 
the  permit  on  board  the  vessel,  and  delivers  it  to  the  inspector  on  board,  and 
takes  such  of  the  goods  to  his  own  store  as  are  not  designated  for  the  ap- : 
praisers' store,  and  those  which  are  designated  on  the  permit  for  the  ap-  \ 
praiser's  store  are  then  sent,  and  the  inspector  keeps  the  permit  as  his  re-  • 
ceipt,  which  he  files  in  the  surveyor's  office  with  his  account  of  the  dis* : 
charge  of  the  cargo. 

4.  When  the  designated  packages  reach  the  appraisers'  store,  the  mer- 
chant deposites  his  invoice  there,  and  they  are  accordingly  examined,  and 
the  result  of  that  examination  endorsed  by  the  appraisers  on  the  invoice, 
and  it  is  then  sent  by  one  of  their  own  messengers  to  the  entry  clerk  of  the 
collector,  who  then  compares  the  return  with  the  invoice,  and  if  they  agree, 
the  invoice  is  handed  to  the  order  clerk,  who  makes  an  order  on  the  store- 
keeper of  the  port  for  the  examined  packages  in  the  appraisers'  store  ;  and 
when  that  order  is  checked  by  the  bond  clerk  or  cashier,  as  the  case  may 
be,  it  is  taken  to  the  collector  or  deputy  to  sign,  and,  after  being  signed,  it 
is  taken  to  the  storekeeper  of  the  port,  who  retains  the  same,  and  causes 
another  order  to  be  made  on  the  storekeeper  at  the  appraisers'  store  for  the 
said  examined  packages.  The  invoice  is  retained  by  the  collector's  invoice 
clerk. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


425 


I  By  the  preceding  statement,  you  will  perceive  that  the  merchant  has  his 
goods,  and  the  Government  have  the  duties  in  cash,  or  are  secured  by  bond  ; 
and  I  will  now  continue  the  history  upon  other  points,  including  the  col- 
lection of  the  bonds. 

The  bonds  are  taken  in  books  containing  200  bonds  each,  and,  in  the  first 
.  instance,  are  generally  filled  up  for  a  nominal  amount. 

To  ascertain  the  amount  due  on  each  bond,  the  entries  of  the  vessel  are 
collected  together,  and  the  calculations  of  the  duties  on  each  entry  are  re- 
ceived in  the  collector's  office,  and  then  sent  to  the  nava)  office  for  exam- 
ination, together  with  the  manifest,  and  if  found  to  agree  with  the  collect- 
or's computation,  he  signs  the  manifest  of  the  vessel,  on  which  manifest  the 
separate  amounts  of  each  entry  are  recorded,  and  returns  it,  with  the  en- 
tries, to  the  collector's  office.  The  whole  we  then  send  to  the  auditor's 
room,  for  the  purpose  of  inserting  the  exact  amount  of  duties  in  each  bond 
given  for  the  importation  of  that  vessel.  When  the  whole  importations  of 
any  one  month  of  bonded  duties  are  completed,  and  the  true  amounts  in- 
serted therein,  they  are  cut  from  the  bqok,and  have  been,  since  I  have  been 
in  office,  retained  by  the  auditor,  and  they  are  then  recorded  in  what  is 
|'<  called  the.  notice  book,  or  register  of  bonds  payable,  and  from  that  book  the 
notices  are  prepared  for  each  bond,  and  left  at  the  place  of  business  of  the 
i  principal  in  the  bond  ;  which  notice  is  generally  served  about  fifteen  days 
before  the  bond  is  at  maturity. 

On  the  day  the  bond  falls  due,  a  person  calls  with  the  notice  at  the 
:  cashier's  room,  and  presents  his  notice,  and  the  money  is  received  by  the 
|, cashier,  who  puts  his  check  or  memorandum  on  the  notice,  as  evidence  of 
)  payment,  and  enters  the  money  in  the  cash  book  as  received  for  such  a 
4, bond,  when  the  notice  is  taken  back  from  the  cashier,  by  the  person  who 
I; presented  the  same,  and  by  him  carried  to  the  auditor,  who  delivers  the 
I: bond,  and  marks  upon  the  register  as  paid.  At  the  close  of  business  of 
Ijthe  day,  the  cashier  balances  his  cash  with  his  cash  book,  and  early  on  the 

■  .following  morning  the  cash  book  is  taken  to  the  auditor's  room,  where  it 
Lis  transcribed,  and  the  entry  of  the  payment  of  bonds  is  carefully  com- 

■  pared  with  the  register  of  bonds  in  the  auditor's  office,  to  see  if  all  the 
[  ,  bonds  which  he  has  parted  with  on  the  preceding  day  are  accounted  for 
\  ;on  the  cash  book.    If  any  bonds  remain  unpaid,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  col- 
lector "  forthwith  and  without  delay"  to  send  them  to  the  district  attor- 

i  iney,  and,  for  that  purpose,  the  auditor,  when  any  bonds  remain  unpaid  on 
SJ.anv  given  day,  is  directed  by  the  collector  to  select  the  same,  and  charge 
them  in  a  book,  for  that  purpose  prepared,  to  the  district  attorney,  and,  be- 
fore he  delivers  the  same  to  the  district  attorney,  to  require  the  person  au- 
r  ithorizedby  the  district  attorney  to  receive  the  same  to  sign  an  acknow- 
ledgment in  the  said  book  for  such  bond  ;  which  person  then  takes  them, 
and  in  a  short  time  thereafter  returns  triplicate  receipts,  signed  by  the  dis- 
trict attorney,  for  such  bond  ;  and  thereupon  the  collector  forwards  to  the 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  an  account  of  said  bonds,  so  delivered  to  the  dis- 
trict attorney,  with  one  of  the  receipts  so  taken  from  the  district  attorney. 

From  this  mode  of  collecting  the  bonds,  it  will  readily  appear  that  no 
fraud  could  be  practised  in  relation  to  their  collection,  or  the  entry  of  the 
same,  unless  by  a  collusion,  running  through  two  branches  of  the  depart- 
ment, which  must  embrace  at  least  the  four  persons  in  the  cashier's  office 
and  the  three  persons  in  the  auditor's  room,  through  all  of  whose  hands 


426 


Rep.  No.  669. 


the  bonds  or  moneys  in  some  or  other  of  the  various  stages  of  the  transac- 
tions, one  or  the  other,  must  pass. 

I  ought  to  have  remarked,  in  a  former  part  of  this  letter,  that  it  takes  a 
period  of  six  weeks,  in  ordinary  cases,  from  the  time  the  bond  is  given,  to 
make  up  the  accounts,  so  as  to  ascertain  the  exact  amount  of  duties  se- 
cured by  said  bond. 

You  will  perceive,  by  this  time,  I  have  received  the  money  for  the  bonds, 
and  I  will  now  inform  you  in  what  that  money  consists,  and  what  I  do 
with  it. 

The  great  amount  of  my  receipts  since  the  banks  resumed  specie  pay- 
ments has  been  in  merchant's  checks  on  the  banks  in  this  city,  and  the  re- 
mainder is  in  Treasury  notes.  I  have  no  authority  from  the  Government 
to  keep  the  money  in  any  bank,  and  I  did  not  deem  it  safe  to  keep  it  in 
the  custom-house.  I  therefore  proposed  to  the  bank  of  the  State  of  New 
York  and  the  City  Bank,  if  each  of  them  would  give  me  a  written  engage- 
ment to  consider  all  my  deposites  as  specie,  and  that  my  drafts  on  them 
should  be  paid  in  specie  when  required,  I  would  employ  them  as  my 
agents,  to  keep  the  money,  as  I  employed  the  cashier  to  collect  it ;  and,  as  I 
had  no  authority  to  keep  my  money  in  bank,  I  did  it  on  my  own  respon- 
sibility, and  must,  of  necessity,  keep  the  account  in  my  own  name.  These 
respective  banks  consented  to  that  arrangement,  and  I  accordingly  opened 
an  account  in  each  of  said  banks,  and  all  Treasury  circulars  I  have  since 
received  in  relation  to  the  moneyed  affairs  of  this  office  I  have  given  copies 
to  each  of  said  banks,  as  I  did  to  the  cashier  of  my  own  office,  and  re- 
quested them  to  comply  with  the  requirements  of  such  circulars. 

In  relation  to  making  up  my  collections  for  deposite,  I  require  the  cashier 
at  two  o'clock  of  each  day  to  prepare  a  list  of  each  check,  and  the  amount, 
of  bank  bills  that  are  to  be  deposited,  and  hand  over  the  same  to  Mr. 
Thurston,  my  brother-in-law,  who  keeps  a  separate  account  of  the  moneyed 
transactions  of  the  office,  apart  from  the  general  books,  and,  as  a  check  upon 
them,  copies  that  list,  and  examines  the  statement  handed  by  the  cashier; 
and,  if  found  correct,  he  takes  his  own  copy  to  the  bank,  where  he  leaves  it 
with  his  deposite,  and  files  away  the  one  made  by  the  cashier.  Thus  much 
for  the  safe  keeping  of  the  money  collected  by  me.  I  will  now  detail  the 
mode  of  disbursing  it,  and  the  responsibility  I  assume,  and  for  which  no 
compensation  is  allowed  me. 

On  Saturday,  of  each  week,  I  transfer  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treas- 
urer of  the  United  States  such  of  the  collections  of  that  week  as  will  not 
be  required  for  other  purposes.  A  return  of  the  sum  thus  transferred  I 
forward  the  same  day  to  the  Treasurer,  and  generally  at  the  same  time  I 
apprize  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  of  the  amount  so  transferred,  which 
is  subject  to  the  drafts  of  the  Treasurer.  This  amount,  of  course,  is  kept 
on  the  general  books  of  the  office;  but,  in  addition  to  this,  I  require  Mr.. 
Thurston  to  keep  a  separate  account,  in  what  I  call  "the  book  of  trial  bal- 
ance." When  I  receive  notice  of  a  draft  drawn  by  the  Treasurer,  Mr. 
Thurston  first  enters  it  on  his  book ;  he  then  sends  it  to  the  auditor's  room, 
where  it  is  entered  and  filed  away.  When  the  draft  appears,  the  person 
presenting  it  goes  to  the  auditor's  room,  where  it  is  compared  and  found 
correct,  and  the  endorsements  are  in  rule;  it  is  audited,  receipted  for,  and 
the  auditor  charges  it  to  the  Treasurer,  and  draws  a  check  on  me;  upon 
which  check  I  require  him  to  place  the  number  of  the  Treasury  draft  it 
answers  to ;  that  check  comes  to  Mr.  Thurston,  who  fills  up  a  check  on  the 


Hep.  No.  669.  427 

bank,  which  I  assign  and  give  to  the  person  presenting  the  draft;  Mr.  Thurs- 
ton then  marks  the  number  of  the  Treasury  draft  as  paid,  and  charges  on 
his  books  to  the  Treasurer  the  amount  paid.  . 

On  Monday  morning  of  each  week,  the  auditor  makes  up  the  Treasurer's 
account  for  the  preceding  week,  or  what  we  call  a  weekly  return,  which 
he  compares  with  Mr.  Thurston's  books,  and  if  found  to  agree,  I  sign  the 
account ;  and  if  they  do  not  agree,  the  error  is  sought  for,  and  the  account 
or  return  is  not  signed  till  the  error  is  detected. 

By  this  you  will  perceive  that  a  responsibility  is  thrown  upon  me  of 
disbursing  the  public  moneys ;  for,  if  I  pay  upon  a  wrong  endorsement, 
or  to  the  wrong  individual,  by  means  of  forgery  or  other  felony,  I  am  still 
responsible  to  the  rightful  owner;  and  to  that  exposure  I  am  subject,  not- 
withstanding all  my  diligence. 

It  frequently  happens,  from  the  operations  of  the  railroad  between  this 
and  Washington,  the  drafts  come  to  me  at  two  o'clock  of  the  day,  when  the 
notice  of  its  being  drawn  does  not  reach  me  till  the  next;  and  in  one  in- 
stance a  draft  of  $  103,000  came  under  such  circumstances,  when  I  was 
-obliged  to  take  the  responsibility  of  paying  it,  or  permitting  it  to  be  pro- 
tested, when  my  reputation  would  suffer  as  badly  as  it  did  a  short  time  since, 
when  the  Mechanics'  Bank  lost  my  check  for  $28,000. 

To  protect  myself  against  error,  by  accident  or  design,  I  have  required, 
from  the  day  I  went  into  office,  from  the  cashier,  a  daily  abstract  of  the 
cash  transactions  of  the  office  to  be  inserted  in  a  book  provided  for  that 
purpose,  which  is  handed  to  Mr.  Thurston,  as  a  private  muniment  in  my 
own  possession,  and  which  has  been  carefully  placed  in  a  tin  box  every 
night,  and  put  in  the  vault ;  so  that  in  case  of  fire,  or  other  accident,  I  shall 
at  all  times  have  it  in  my  power  to  give  some  account  of  the  transactions 
for  which  I  am  responsible.  In  addition  to  which,  I  have  required,  for  the 
like  time,  at  the  closing  of  the  business  on  each  clay,  the  amount  of  Treas- 
ury notes  redeemed  and  cancelled  for  that  day  to  be  given  to  me  on  paper, 
which  I  cause  to  be  immediately  entered  on  the  book  kept  by  Mr.  Thurs- 
ton, before  referred  to;  which  book  is  also  placed  in  the  vault  at  night, 
after  being  put  in  the  same  tin  box;  and  on  each  Monday,  when  1  make 
the  weekly  return,  not  before  referred  to,  the  various  statements  I  take  from 
day  to  day  are  compared  with  the  accounts  made  up  from  the  books  of 
the  office;  and  if  these  returns  agree  with  such  statements,  I  sign  them; 
and  if  not,  the  accounts  are  examined  and  re-examined  till  the  discrep- 
ancy is  detected,  before  I  sign  or  forward  the  ordinary  weekly  return,  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  Treasurer's  account  is  examined.  Since,  (the 
period  I  will  not  particularly  designate,)  the  tin  box  containing  the  private 
books  referred  to  has  been  put  in  the  vault  of  the  Bank  of  the  State  of 
New  York. 

I  have  now  given  you  a  brief  detail  of  the  various  modes  by  which  I 
perform  the  duties  of  the  office  of  collector  of  this  port,  in  order  that  you 
may  be  the  better  prepared  to  legislate,  as  no  doubt  you  will  be  called 
upon  to  do,  at  the  session  of  Congress  about  to  commence. 

I  have  written  this  communication  in  a  hurried  maimer  at  my  table  dur- 
ing the  business  hours  of  the  day,  and  which  will  account  for  Its  lengthy 
for  I  had  not  time  to  abridge  or  condense. 

I  remain,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  C.  C.  Cambreling. 
1G* 


428 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  30,  1838. 

Sir  :  The  Treasury  notes  past  due  begin  to  show  themselves  at  this  of- 
fice in  small  sums,  under  the  . idea  that  I  have  the  power  to  redeem  them- 
I  have  redeemed  some  of  them  in  an  indirect  way — that  is  to  say,  the 
persons  have  left  them,  and  I  have  handed  them  to  some  one  who  had  a 
bond  or  cash  duty  to  pay,  and  they  receipt  for  them  in  the  auditor's  room. 
I  do  not  like  this  form  of  doing  it,  unless  by  your  sanction.  It  is  very 
inconvenient,  at  times,  for  the  owners  to  send  them  to  Washington,  besides 
the  risk  of  transmission. 

From  your  former  letters  to  me  on  this  subject,  I  inferred  that  you  were 
desirous  to  get  in  the  notes  that  are  past  due,  which  has  induced  me,  tc* 
some  extent,  to  deal  with  them  in  the  way  I  have  stated. 

1  would  be  glad  to  hear  from  you  on  this  subject. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


New  York,  December  1,  IS 38. 
Dear  Sir  :  On  the  26th  of  November  last,  I  wrote  a  letter  to  the  Hon. 
C.  C.  Cambreling,  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  I  now 
beg  to  transmit  you  a  copy  ;  and  for  the  same  reason  I  addressed  it  to  him 
I  furnish  you  with  a  copy. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Silas  Wright,  Jr. 


New  York,  December  1,  183S. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  send  you  a  copy  of  the  letter  to  Mr.  Cambreling.    I  give 
Mr.  Wright  a  copy  also.    I  do  not  know  how  proper  it  may  be  for  me  to 
give  out  copies  of  a  letter  to  a  gentleman ;  but  it  is  a  public  matter,  upon 
which  every  legislator  has  a  right  to  be  informed. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT. 

Hon.  E.  Curtis,  M.  C,  $c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  1,  1838. 

I  transfer  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  to-day,  only  Si 30,000.  It  is 
the  smallest  transfer  I  have  made  since  I  have  been  sub -Treasurer,  and 
since  the  banks  resinned,  except  one  week,  when  it  was  only  $125,000. 
I  paid  to-day,  however,  the  officers,  to  the  amount  of  $30,000.  I  have, 
in  the  deposite  account,  not  yet  to  the  credit  of  the  Government,  $107,000, 
out  of  which  I  am  in  advance  to  the  naval  officer,  and  to  the  contingent 
expense  account,  for  clerk  hire,  &c,  a  large  sum,  which  exact  amount  I 


Rep.  No.  669. 


429 


cannot  tell,  as  my  book  is  locked  up  and  gone  to  the  bank,  and  the  clerks 

here  ali  left  the  office,  except  my  copy  clerk. 

Respectfully,  &c. 


Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


J.  HOYT,  Collector. 


[Private.] 

New  York,  December  6,  1S38. 
Dear  Price  :  Unless  there  is  a  necessity  of  your  going  to  Washington, 
I  beg  you  will  not  go  till  you  have  done  at  least  two  things: 

1.  Take  measures  to  have  the  question  of  custody,  between  the  mar- 
shal and  myself,  settled  in  some  form  or  other.  It  is  now  six  months 
since  you  received  directions  from  the  Solicitor  to  act  in  the  matter. 

2.  File  the  information  in  the  case  of  the  seizures,  so  as  to  have  them 
tried  in  January.  Mr.  Coe  and  Mr.  Craig  complain  bitterly,  and,  I  think, 
with  great  justice,  at  the  delay,  and  especially  in  the  case  of  De  Casse, 
Miege,  &  Co.,  and  La  Chaise  &  Fouche.  It  is  a  reproach  to  the  admin- 
istration of  justice  that  this  matter  has  been  permitted  to  rest  for  such  a 
length  of  time.  I  have  repeatedly  expressed  the  opinion  to  you,  that 
neither  of  these  firms  would  make  any  defence. 

In  the  first  question  stated,  I  have  appealed  to  you,  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  and  the  Solicitor ;  and  if  I  am  not  righted  in  this  matter,  I 
will  next  appeal  to  the  Executive;  and  if  he  will  not  see  that  I  have  the 
benefit  of  the  law  of  the  land,  I  will  go  to  Congress.  If  I  cannot  have 
the  aid  of  the  officers  of  the  Government  in  executing  the  laws,  the  re- 
sponsibility in  relation  to  which  is  thrown  upon  me,  it  is  time  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  people  were  apprized  of  it. 

Yours,  truly. 

J.  HOYT. 

Wm.  M.  Price,  Esq. 

[Not  sent.'  See  letter  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  of  this  date, 
in  private  letter-book.] 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  7,  1S38. 
Sir:  I  have  made  a  full  report  to  the  President,  in  relation  to  Mr. 
Price,  the  late  district  attorney ;  and  a  want  of  time  has  prevented  me 
from  making  a  report  to  you. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  8,  IS3S. 
Sir  :  I  transferred  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  to-day,  for 
the  receipts  of  the  week,  $145,000.    The  cash  duties  have  been  small 
and  the  bonds  light.    The  money  market  is  in  rather  an  unsettled  state. 


430 


Kep.  No.  669„ 


Mr.  Biddle's  bank  has  been  drawing  specie,  and  doing  divers  other  un- 
necessary things,  and,  as  many  suppose,  with  a  view  of  creating  some  em- 
barrassment at  this  particular  time.  I  am  inclined  to  think,  what  some 
attribute  to  design  proceeds  rather  from  necessity.  I  have  written  a  fur- 
ther letter  to  the  President  to-day,  on  the  subject  of  the  affairs  of  Mr. 
Price,  but  nothing  of  moment  has  transpired  further  in  relation  to  them. 
The  most  unfavorable  inferences  are,  of  course,  to  be  drawn.  I  think  his 
defalcations,  in  his  own  name,  with  this  office,  cannot  exceed  $40,000 ; 
and  of  this  the  United  States  owe  him  something,  and  probably  a  consid  - 
erable amount,  for  professional  services. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury  , 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  11,  1838. 

Sir  :  From  a  communication  1  received  to-day  from  the  President,  I  in- 
fer that  my  private  letters,  addressed  to  him  on  the  6th  and  7th  instant, 
will  go  on  the  files  of  the  department — I  know  not  whether  in  your  office 
or  the  Secretary's  ;  but,  wherever  it  may  be,  I  beg  to  remark,  in  refer- 
ence to  the  letter  of  the  2d  of  August,  written  to  Mr.  Price — a  copy  of 
which  forms  a  part  of  my  report  to  the  President,  under  date  of  the" 7th 
instant — that  I  made  inquiries  about  it  of  Mr,  Kingsland  yesterday,  and 
he  informs  me  that  he  never  saw  the  letter,  but  Mr.  Price  told  him,  about 
that  time,  that,  when  he  paid  money  over  to  me,  he  must  add  the  interest 
up  to  the  day  preceding  that  in  which  it  was  paid  over.  This,  of  course, 
got  rid  of  the  difficulty  I  interposed  by  that  letter,  and  threw  me  off  any 
further  degree  of  watchfulness  in  relation  to  it.  1  say  this  to  you,  because 
there  are  those,  in  this  community,  who  still  profess  to  believe  that  Mr. 
Price  could  not  have  left  the  country  without  my  knowledge  of  his  in- 
tention to  do  so.  There  are  many  absurd  stories  in  relation  to  it,  and  one 
is,  that  I  was  seen  with  him  at  a  late  hour  the  evening  before,  he  left. 
The  last  unofficial  or  official  letter  either  I  now  enclose  to  you ;  and  it  is 
dated  "Tuesday,"  which  was  the  4th  instant.  I  did  not  accept  of  his  in- 
vitation to  dinner,  because  I  did  not  get  through  my  correspondence  that 
day  in  time  for  his  dinner  hour.  I,  however,  stopped  at  his  house,  on  my 
way  to  my  own  house  to  dinner,  to  say  to  him  that  I  should  call  at  ten 
o'clock  in  the  evening,  and  go  with  him  to  the  post  office,  and  wait  for 
the  President's  message.  1  did  call,  and  we  went  to  the  post  office,  first 
stopping  on  the  way  for  Mr.  J.  Oakley;  and  we  waited  at  the  post-office 
till  a  quarter  past  eleven,  when  the  message  came,  and  I  read  it  aloud  to 
these  gentlemen  and  to  the  postmaster;  and,  after  that,  we  all  went  away 
together,  and  stopped  at  our  respective  residences.  The  next  evening  I 
was  not  out  of  my  house  after  five  in  the  afternoon  ;  and  Mr.  Price  came 
np  at  half  past  seven,  and  remained  till  nine  o'clock,  and  left  me  as  usual, 
but  under  the  impression  he  was  going  to  Washington  as  soon  as  court 
was  over.    The  result  you  have  been  informed  of. 

Please  return  Mr.  P.'s  letter. 

Respectfully, 

J,  HOYT,  CoUeclor. 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Esq.,  Solicitor^  fyc* 


Rep.  No.  669., 


431 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  12,  1838. 
Sir  :  We  are  under  an  enormous  rent  for  the  stores  we  now  occupy,  the 
leases  of  which  expire  on  the  1st  of  May.  The  time  for  letting  is  the  1st 
of  February ;  and  as  I  intend  to  reduce  the  rent,  I  wish  to  commence  an. 
early  negotiation  with  the  owners  of  the  property,  to  the  end  that  we  may 
not  be  exposed  to  a  heavier  rent  than  the  nature  of  the  case  requires. 

After  the  great  fire,  you  are  aware  that  rents  of  stores  advanced  very 
much,  and  Mr.  Swartwout  was  compelled,  I  presume,  to  pay  as  others  did. 
The  burnt  district  having  now  been  rebuilt,  and  a  great  many  stores  in 
addition,  rents  must  fall.    We  occupy  as  follows  : 

2  stores  on  Pine  street,  at  $4,000  each        -  -  -  $8,000 

2  stores  on  Cedar  street,  at  $4,000  each  -  8,000 
These  are  the  buildings  in  which  the  collector,  naval  officer, 

and  surveyor,  do  their  business. 
We  also  occupy  another  store  on  Cedar  street,  for  accom- 
modation of  appraisers'  store       -  4,000 
The  appraisers  occupy  three  stores  in  Nassau  street,  for  which 

we  pay  ~  -  -  -  -  -  1 3,000 


Making  in  all  -  $33,000 


If  we  keep  all  the  stores,  i  think  I  can  reduce  the  rent  $8,000;  but  this 
may  depend,  in  some  degree,  as  to  the  length  of  time  we  propose  to  take 
them  for.  As  to  those  now  occupied  by  the  appraisers,  we  shall  want 
them  as  long  as  the  present  system  is  continued.  Their  contiguity  to  the 
new  building  is  about  the  same  as  to  the  ones  now  occupied  by  the  col- 
lector and  naval  officer.  In  relation  to  the  latter  stores,  and  the  time  we 
shall  want  them,  I  am  unable  to  speak.  I  went  to  the  new  custom-house 
to-day,  and  I  was  shown  a  draught  of  a  report  to  you  for  additional  ap- 
propriations, and  among  the  items  was  2\  years'  labor.  I  do  not  know 
that  I  shall  be  asked  to  sign  the  report ;  but  I  certainly  shall  not,  if  I  am. 
1  cannot  abide  the  idea  that  we  are  to  be  that  length  of  time  in  completing 
a  building  which  has  already  occupied  a  much  longer  time  in  its  erection 
than  was  first  contemplated. 

1  mentioned  to  you,  when  here,  that  we  wanted  the  14  feet  of  ground 
on  the  east  side,  for  the  benefit  of  the  light ;  of  this  there  now  remains  no 
doubt.  There  is  a  very  large  pillar  placed  before  each  window  in  the 
east  room,  on  Pine  street,  which  interferes  very  much  with  the  light  that 
might  otherwise  find  its  way  inside.  The  property  can  be  bought,  I  un- 
derstand, for  $25,000;  but  the  appropriation  asked  for  the  completion  of  the 
building  is  so  large,  that  I  am  frightened  at  the  idea  of  asking  for  this  in- 
crease ;  and  yet  the  room  referred  to  will  be  almost  useless  without  more 
light. 

I  would  thank  you  for  your  views,  in  relation  to  the  time  we  had  better 
take  the  stores  for,  at  your  earliest  convenience. 

Respectful] v.  $lc. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


432 


Rep.  No.  669. 


[Private.] 

New  York.  December  12,  1838. 
My  Dear  Sir  :  1  have  your  private  letter  of  the  9th.  I  believe  I  have 
complied  with  all  that  you  require,  but  I  am  not  certain  ;  if  not,  be  pleased 
to  let  me  know.  I  have  written  so  much  in  relation  to  Price's  affairs,  that 
I  have  not  time  to  resort  to  my  books,  and  I  certainly  cannot  recollect. 
Moreover,  my  book  of  "  correspondence  with  the  law  officers"  is  up  at 
Mr.  Butler's  house,  who  took  the  oath  of  office  to-day.  He  wanted  to 
postpone  it  till  to-morrow,  but  I  pushed  him  to  the  work  to-day.  I  now 
feel  greatly  relieved.  1  have  had  an  awful  time  of  it  since  J  have  been  in 
office. 

Send  me  a  copy  of  the  Secretary's  report  on  Swartwout's  affairs,  as 
soon  as  published.    Will  Congress  now  see  the  necessity  of  legislation  ? 

In  haste,  &.c. 

J.  HOYT. 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Esq.,  Solicitor,  fyc. 


[Prhate.] 

New  York,  Saturday  Evening,  December  15,  1S3S. 

Dear  Sir  :  In  one  of  your  letters,  a  few  days  since,  you  mentioned 
that  I  had  not  sent  you  the  form  of  the  monition  used  in  this  district. 

I  have  not  had  the  leisure  before  this  evening  to  look  at  my  book  of 
correspondence,  to  see  in  what  communication  to  you  I  had  supposed  I 
Lad  forwarded  it.  I  am  inclined  to  think  you  may  not  have  got  my  letters 
of  the  16th  and  17th  of  November,  in  the  latter  of  which  I  sent  the  moni- 
tion, and  also  a  book  on  admiralty  practice,  recently  published  by  Judge 
Betts,  of  this  district.  Neither  of  these  letters  have  you  referred  to  in 
any  of  your  communications  since  that  time,  and  both  of  which  related  to 
the  question  between  the  marshal  and  myself.  Mr.  Butler  has  cursorily 
looked  at  the  question,  but  he  has  so  many  things  to  look  at  in  the  present 
crisis,  that  he  has  scarcely  leisure  to  consider  any  one  of  them  in  all  the 
bearings  belonging  to  it.  He  agrees  with  Judge  Story's  views,  as  laid 
down  by  him  in  Burke  vs.  Trivett,  1st  Mason  ;  but,  as  the  marshal  will  in 
no  form  consent  to  any  course  to  arrive  at  a  judicial  construction  of  the 
court  here,  he  has  not  fully  made  up  his  mind  how  to  proceed.  I  am 
anxious  to  get  the  question  settled,  for  another  reason ;  which  is,  I  had  a 
case  of  condemnation  last  July,  in  which  I  received  about  Si 4,000.  The 
marshal  charges  about  $800  custody  fees,  (as  near  as  I  recollect,  the  papers 
are  not  now  before  me,)  when  the  goods  were  not  out  of  the  public  stores 
at  all  till  they  went  to  the  auction  room,  about  four  days  before  the  sale. 
I  have  not  yet  passed  the  share  of  the  United  States  to  the  credit  of  the 
Government  in  the  books  of  this  office,  because  I  have  been  hoping  weekly 
to  get  this  question  settled,  that  I  might  move  for  a  relaxation  of  the  mar- 
shal's costs,  and  compel  him  to  pay  over  the  balance  which  he  had  no  right 
to  retain.  I  have  distributed,  the  shares  to  the  other  officers,  but  Mr. 
Fleming  thought  I  had  better  have  the  other  matter  settled  first,  before  he 
audited  the  accounts,  as,  when  audited,  he  sent  the  vouchers  to  Washing- 
ton, when  I  should  have  parted  with  the  papers  on  which  to  make  the 
motion ;  but  I  shall  audit  the  account  before  the  close  of  this  quarter, 
settlement  or  no  settlement  of  the  litigated  question,  for  I  will  not  stand 
in  the  attitude  of  having  money  in  my  possession  not  passed  to  the  credifi 


Eep.  No.  669. 


433 


of  the  Government.  This  is  the  only  case  of  seizure,  since  I. have  been  in 
office,  which  Mr.  Price  prosecuted  to  judgment ;  and  this  was  the  case  of 
C.  W.  Dayton,  where  there  was  no  defence,  and  understood  from  the  be- 
ginning that  there  would  be  none.  I  will  state  another  incident  connected 
with  this,  to  illustrate  the  character  of  Mr.  Price.  There  was  a  claim  put 
in  for  a  portion  of  the  fund  I  have  referred  to,  by  one  of  my  deputies,  in 
the  capacity  of  an  informer  ;  the  question  was  referred  to  Mr.  Price,  and 
he  wrote  a  labored  opinion  to  prove  the  informer  was  entitled  to  his  share. 
This  opinion  was  erroneous,  not  only  in  my  judgment,  but  in  that  of  Mr. 
Duer,  the  former  district  attorney,  and  the  question  is  yet  unsettled.  So 
in  the  case  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  recognizance  of  Rottomley,  about  which 
I  wrote  you,  as  did  also  the  marshal.  That  question  was  argued  at  the 
present  term  of  the  circuit  court,  and  the  last  cause  that  Mr.  Price  argued. 
Mr.  Butler  argued  for  me  and  the  other  officers,  and  Mr.  Price  for  the 
United  States.  He  made  a  good  brief,  and  argued  the  cause  well,  and  the 
court  decided  with  him,  and  he  seemed  to  be  as  much  gratified  as  though 
he  had  accomplished  a  matter  that  was  to  be  of  the  greatest  moment  to 
him.  I  scolded  at  him  so  much  about  his  negligence  of  business,  that  he 
never  missed  any  opportunity  he  could  get  of  triumphing  over  me  in 
those  particulars. 

Will  you  have  the  goodness  to  say  whether  you  received  my  letters  of 
the  16th  and  17th  of  November,  referred  to?  And  if  you  could  make  any 
suggestions  in  regard  to  the  questions  referred  to  in  these  letters  to  Mr. 
Butler,  it  might  have  the  tendency  to  strengthen  him  in  the  course  he  will 
"be  compelled  to  take  with  the  marshal,  who  is  excessively  obdurate  in  the 
matter,  and  who  I  think  is  secretly  backed  by  Judge  Betts. 

Truly,  vours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT. 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Esq.,  Solicitor,  fyc. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December*  17,  183S. 
-********** 

"  I  have  taken  all  takeable  exceptions,  but  the  proof  as  to  the  articles  be- 
ing hosiery  was  so  utterly  overwhelming  that  it  would  have  been  utterly 
ridiculous  to  urge  that  it  was  not  so.  Even  Mr.  William  Cairns  told  me 
that  the  articles  were  certainly  known  under  the  general  denomination  of 
hosiery.  I  sent  for  Jonathan  Thompson,  and  I  stood  alone  with  him  and  E. 
H.  Nichols,  as  to  custom-house  usage  only,  opposed  by  nine  witnesses — 
manufacturers,  merchant  tailors — all  positively  swearing  that  the  articles 
were  hosiery,  and  there  is  no  doubt  they  are  so. 

"  Yours,  &c. 

"WM.  M.  PRICE.'' 

But  when  the  witness  returned  and  stated  that  he  had  not  been  called  to 
prove  the  fact  that  the  money  had  been  paid  over  by  me,  and  also  to  prove 
the  course  of  business  in  the  custom-house.  I  was  exceedingly  provoked  at 
the  course  of  the  district  attorney,  and  wrote  him  a  letter  in  these  words  : 

"  Custom-House,  New  York,  November  28,  1838. 
"  Sir  :  I  cannot  conceal  from  you  my  dissatisfaction  at  the  manner  o . 
trying  the  case  of  Hadden  &  Co.,  if  it  be  reported  right  to  me.    Mr.  Phir- 


434 


Rep.  No.  669. 


lips  was  in  court  all  the  morning,  and  was  not  called  to  prove  the  fact  that 
the  money  was  paid  over  to  the  Government  without  any  knowledge  on 
my  part  that  a  protest  had  been  made  ;  and  he  tells  me  that  it  was  not  ad-( 
mitted,  and,  of  course,  the  facts  are  not  all  in  the  case.    His  testimony,  inJ 
other  respects,  as  to  the  form  of  doing  business  here,  was  important  to  con- 
tradict Mr.  Had  den. 

"  I  protest  now  against  this  mode  of  being  driven  out  of  court,  and  I  will 
renew  the  protest  when  your  bill  comes  in.  I  will  protest  at  the  right  time. 
If  you  choose  to  excuse  Mr.  Hadden  from  doing  it,  the  responsibility  is 
with  you.  * 

"  Yours,  &c. 

"  J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

<k  Wm.  M.  Price, 

<<  U.  S.  District  Attorney:" 

I  wrote  this  letter,  I  confess,  under  some  excitement,  and  retained  it  till 
the  next  morning  for  reflection.  1  concluded  in  the  morning  I  would  not 
send  it  to  him,  but  to  Mr.  Gilpin,  the  Solicitor,  as  evidence  of  my  complaints 
against  the  manner  of  Mr.  Price's  conducting  the  trial  of  causes  in  which  the 
Government  were  interested.  But  I  supposed,  from  Mr.  Price's  letter  to 
me,  that  there  were  exceptions  taken,  till  the  costs  were  sent  to  me,  and  the 
amount  of  the  verdict  and  costs  demanded,  by  which  time  Mr.  Price  had 
disappeared  ;  and  upon  investigation  and  consultation  with  Mr.  Butler,  the 
present  district  attorney,  it  was  exceedingly  doubtful — 

1st.  Whether  any  exception  was  taken  as  to  the  validity  of  the  protest 
so  far  as  to  affect  me. 

2d.  It  was  manifest  that  the  fact  of  the  money  having  been  paid  over 
was  not  in  proof. 

3d.  Mr.  Butler  was  of  opinion  that  we  could  not  take  the  question  to  the 
Supreme  Court,  for  the  reason  that  the  amount  was  not  sufficiently  large. 

4th.  And  as  we  could  not  do  this,  it  was  of  very  little  use  to  incur  the 
expense  of  arguing  the  cause  in  the  court  below,  and  he  therefore  advised 
me  to  pay  the  judgment,  which  I  did  on  Saturday,  out  of  your  funds,  and 
I  now  ask  permission  to  charge  it  to  the  United  States. 

I  paid  verdict       -  $264  74 

Costs        -  -  -  -  -  -         S2  42 


For  which  I  had  in  hand,  as  paid  to  me  on  the  3d  of  Sep- 
tember, under  protest    -  -  - 

Leaving  a  balance  of  this  sum  - 


347 

16 

189 

42 

157 

74 

Which  I  ask  for  permission  to  charge  to  the  United  States. 

I  shall  report  the  facts  decided  by  the  jury  to  the  Comptroller,  for  his  con- 
sideration, in  reference  to  the  duties  hereafter  to  be  charged  on  the  articles.. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


435 


Attorney  General's  Office,  December  19,  1838. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  yours  of  the  7th  instant,  in  which 
you  state  that  "  it  frequently  happens,  especially  at  the  larger  ports  of  en- 
try, on  the  importation  of  some  particular  descriptions  of  goods,  that  the 
importer  disputes  the  duty  to  which  the  collector,  acting  under  the  instruc- 
tions of  the  Comptroller,  decides  the  articles  in  question  to  be  liable,  under 
the  tariff  laws;  but,  with  the  view  of  getting  possession  of  his  goods,  the 
importer  pays,  under  protest,  the  amount  of  duty  demanded  by  the  collect- 
or, and  at  the  same  time  gives  that  officer  notice  not  to  pay  over  the  money 
to  the  Government,  and  immediately  institutes  a  suit  against  the  collector 
to  recover  back  the  amount  so  paid. 

"  Under  these  circumstances,  the  following  question  arises,  viz  :  Can  a 
collector  legally  retain  in  his  hands,  beyond  the  control  of  the  Department^ 
and  distinct  from  his  other  funds  arising  from  duties,  moneys  so  received  ?'? 

In  answer  to  this  question,  I  would  say,  that,  under  the  laws  of  Congress 
in  relation  to  duties  on  imported  articles,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  collector  to 
carry  into  execution  the  instructions  of  the  Treasury  Department,  and  to 
conform  his  acts  to  them.  If,  in  doing  this,  he  shall  collect  more  money 
than  the  judiciary  shall  afterwards,  in  an  action  against  the  collector  by  the 
importer,  adjudge  to  have  been  due  to  the  Government,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Government  to  save  the  collector  from  in- 
jury. But  the  question  you  present  is  of  a  very  different  character.  It  is, 
whether  the  collector  has  a  legal  right  to  retain  the  money  so  received  in  his 
own  hands,  beyond  the  control  of  the  Department,  &c.  My  opinion  is,  that 
no  such  right  exists,  and  that  the  collector  should,  notwithstanding  such 
protest  and  suit  by  the  importer,  pay  over  to  the  Treasury  all  moneys  by 
him  received  under  such  circumstances,  as  though  no  protest  had  been 
made  or  suit  commenced.  I  am  aware  that  it  may  be  said  that  this  course 
would  expose  the  collector  to  inconvenience  and  loss.  The  force  of  this 
suggestion  is  not  perceived.  Now  the  collector  keeps  the  money  in  his  pos- 
session until  the  controversy  is  decided  by  the  judiciary,  and  then  pays  over 
to  ihe  Government  what  may  be  in  his  hands — that  is,  the  whole  collected 
by  him,  if  the  importer  has  failed  in  his  action,  or,  if  the  importer  has  suc- 
ceeded, the  balance  which  may  be  in  his  hands,  after  deducting  ^ie  amount 
of  the  recovery  against  him.  My  impression  is,  that  the  law  never  intend- 
ed that  money  collected  for  public  purposes  should  be  held  by  individuals, 
to  await  the  event  of  iaw  suits.  If  the  money  be  paid  into  the  Treasury, 
and  a  judgment  be  fairly  obtained  against  a  collector  for  an  overcharge  of 
duties,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  Government  promptly  to  discharge  such 
judgment,  and  release  the  collector  from  its  consequences. 

You  say  a  similar  point  arises,  under  the  following  circumstances  :  "  On 
an  importation  of  goods  liable  to  cash  duties,  some  time  unavoidably  must 
elapse  before  the  duties  thereon  can  be  calculated,  and  the  exact  amount 
payable  ascertained.  It  appears  to  be  the  practice  in  such  cases  to  receive 
from  the  importer  a  sum  of  money  deemed  sufficient  to  cover  the  amount, 
when  ascertained  ;  and  any  deficiency  is  afterwards  made  up,  or  the  sur- 
plus refunded  by  the  collector,  as  the  case  may  be.  These  funds  the  col- 
lector designates  as  money  taken  and  held  for  unascertained  duties. 

"  The  same  question,  therefore,  as  the  foregoing  is  presented  in  this 
case." 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  intention  of  those  who  originally  framed  our  rev- 
enue laws  was,  that  the  duties  should  be  ascertained  and  paid,  where  casa 


436 


Rep.  No.  669. 


duties  are  imposed,  before  the  goods  are  delivered  to  the  owner.  But  it  j 
understood  that  in  some  ports  this  is  wholly  impracticable,  and,  thereto:! 
a  departure  in  practice  from  the  idea  which  I  have  suggested  is  indispenJ 
ble.  This  state  of  things  could  not  have  been  foreseen  by  those  who  o(p 
ginally  passed  the  act  of  Congress  under  which  the  revenue  is  still  collecte 
The  vast  increase  of  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  and  its  concentrjl 
tion  at  particular  ports,  render  that  impracticable  which,  at  an  early  perio:: 
could  easily  be  effected.  If  the  law  cannot  be  executed  according  to  i| 
letter  and  probable  intention,  on  account  of  the  altered  condition  of  the  a| 
fairs  of  the  country.  Congress  alone  can  supply  the  proper  remedy.  In  tM 
mean  time,  however,  until  Congress  shall  act,  such  Treasury  regulatioi 
should  be  adopted  and  enforced  as  will  best  secure  the  objects  of  the  lav 
It  could  never  have  been  the  intention  of  Congress  that  a  collector  shou< 
receive  money  for  duties,  under  a  private  arrangement  with  the  importe 
and  keep  the  money  in  his  hands  until  it  was  convenient  for  him  to  cause  th 
amount  of  duties  to  be  ascertained.  If  such  a  practice  were  tolerated, 
might  be  the  interest  of  the  collector  to  postpone  the  ascertainment  of  tn 
duties,  as,  in  the  mean  time,  he  would  have  the  uncontrolled  use  of  tli 
money.  It  would  also  increase  the  danger  of  faithlessness  in  the  collecto 
by  permitting  large  amounts  of  money  to  remain  with  him,  and  under  hi 
individual  control,  instead  of  being  in  the  Treasury  of  the  United  State: 
The  tenor  and  spirit  of  all  our  revenue  laws  seem  to  inculcate  the  idea  tha 
the  intention  of  Congress  has  at  all  times  been,  that  money  collected  for  re 
venue  purposes  should  be  promptly  placed  in  the  Treasury,  and  not  be  pei 
mitted  to  remain  in  the  hands  of  the  collectors;  therefore,  in  any  regulc 
tions  you  may  make  upon  this  subject,  that  object  should  be  constantly  kef 
in  view. 

I  am.  sir,  &c. 

FELIX  GRUNDY. 

Hon.  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
The  papers  are  returned. 


Extract  from  a  letter  of  J.  Hoyt,  collector  of  New  York,  to  H.  D.  Gilpin. 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 

Custom-House.  New  York,  December  19,  1838. 
Mr.  Fleming  informs  me  that  he  only  heard  of  the  seizures  by  accident, 
and  he  knew  nothing  of  them  till  the  returns  came  from  the  clerk  of  the 
court,  into  whose  hands  the  judge  is  prone  to  be  careful  to  have  the  money 
paid,  so  that  his  brother  (the  clerk)  would  get  his  fees  and  commissions ;  and 
this  operated  as  an  additional  check  on  the  attorney  in  all  such  cases.  Mr. 
Fleming  has  debited  Mr.  Swartwout's  account  with  all  he  knows  of  Mr. 
Swartwout's  having  received  for  penalties  and  forfeitures. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  21,  1S38. 
Sir  :  I  enclose  you  the  following  reports,  made  to  me  by  the  storekeep- 
ers, of  property  taken  from  my  custody  by  the  marshal  of  this  district,  as  I 


Rep.  No.  G69. 


437 


;ay,  without  any  competent  authority,  and  I  request  your  early  action  on 
;he  matter  : 

1.  A  report  from  G.  A.  Wasson,  2d  November 

2.  The  like  from  H.  Ricketson,  1st  November. 

3.  Report  from  G.  A.  Wasson,  8th  November. 
J   4.  A  report  from  same,  24th  November. 

J   5.  Also  from  same,  of  Brooklyn  store,  2d  November, 
ill  I  also  send  you  a  letter  from  James  Hall,  the  importer  of  one  of  the  cases 
preferred  to  in  these  reports,  under  date  of  17th  November  last.    It  does  no: 
Interfere  with  the  views  I  have  on  the  subject. 

Yours, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

1  B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Treasury  Department,  December  22,  1838. 
\  Sir:  As  heretofore  intimated  to  you,  the  opinion  of  the  Attorney  Gene- 
ral has  been  taken  upon  the  subject  presented  in  your  letter  of  the  17th  Oc- 
tober last,  a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  transmitted  for  your  information. 
\  In  view  of  this  opinion,  I  would  suggest  that  the  moneys  held  by  you  on 
iccount  of  duties  paid  under  protest  by  the  parties,  as  also  those  received 
>n  account  of  cash  duties  not  ascertained  at  the  time,  should  be  placed  to 
he  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  so  that  they  can  be  drawn  for  as  needed  ;  but 
it  the  bottom  of  each  weekly  return  the  amount  held  for  each  of  these  ob- 
ects  may  be  enumerated. 

By  this  course,  no  difficulty  will  arise  till  Congress  legislate  on  the  sub- 
ect,  as  they  have  been  requested  to  do,  because  the  accruing  duties  will 
ilways  be  enough  to  refund  from,  and  the  Comptroller  or  myself  will  give 
)roper  directions  in  all  cases  presented  for  refunding  duties  which  have  been 
)aid  under  protest. 

So,  in  regard  to  duties  not  ascertained,  any  excess  or  deficiency  can  be 
•egulated  afterwards,  when  the  duties  shall  have  been  actually  ascertained, 
intil  some  legal  provision  is  made  by  Congress. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  <$r. 


Philadelphia,  December  27,  1S38. 
Sir:  Your  favor  of  the  17th  instant  was  duly  received  on  the  18th  in- 
stant, but  no  district  court  has  been  held  since  the  19$h,  owing  to  the  ab- 
;ence  of  the  judge,  who  adjourned  his  court  until  Monday,  the  31st  instant. 
[  have  referred  to  all  your  letters  relating  both  to  this  case  and  also  to  that 
)f  Bottomly  and  the  woollen  goods,  and  I  do  not  find  that  all  the  necessary 
nquiries  were  distinctly  answered.  This  you  will  perceive  by  reference  to 
,ny  letters  of  the  26th  April  and  14th  May.  In  addition,  therefore,  to  the 
..nformation  contained  in  your  favors  of  the  4th  June  and  17th  instant,  I 
would  request  you  to  inform  me  as  to  what  goods  the  three  packages  were 


43S 


Rep.  No.  669. 


imported  by  Messrs.  De  Casse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  and  under  what  provisions 
the  acts  of  Congress  does  the  district  attorney  for  your  district  propose 
proceed  in  similar  cases. 

I  have  filed  no  information,  but  propose  to  do  so  next  week.  You  are 
familiar  with  all  the  duties  as  perhaps  not  to  be  aware  that  all  we  kn 
here  is  derived  from  your  communications. 

The  marshal  has  been  and  is  now  at  Harrisburg  on  official  business.  ( 
his  return,  I  will  communicate  your  polite  message  to  him. 

I  am,  &c. 

JOHN  M.  READ, 
U.  S.  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  &c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  8,  1S39. 
Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  memorandum  of  Mr.  J.  R.  Bleecker,  deputy,  in 
lation  to  Bottomly's  case,  which  shows  the  necessity  of  having  Joseph  Gi 
man  and  James  Campbell  subpoenaed. 

The  first  was  an  entry  clerk,  and  the  latter  a  deputy. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Treasury  Department,  January  9,  1839. 

.Sir  :  In  regard  to  the  claim  transmitted  in  your  letter  of  the  27th  ulti 
presented  by  Joseph  Hopkins,  late  an  inspector  of  the  customs  at  your  po 
for  expenses  incurred  in  defending  himself  in  a  certain  suit  instituted  aga~" 
him  in  one  of  the  courts  of  the  State  of  New  York  for  an  assault  and  b 
tery,  alleged  to  have  been  committed  in  the  performance  of  his  official  dut 
on  Long  island,  in  the  winter  of  1836,  I  have  to  state  that,  there  being 
precedent  known  to  me  in  which  claims  of  this  character  have  been  pa' 
out  of  the  revenue,  I  do  not  feel  justified  in  making  the  allowance  in  the  ca 
under  consideration.    It  appears  to  be  one  in  which  Congress  alone 
afford  relief. 

The  papers  transmitted  are  herewith  returned. 

I  am,  kc. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  10,  1839. 
Sir  :  The  account  of  the  customs  for  the  3d  quarter  1838  are  computet 
and  ready  for  transmission  to  the  Treasury,  as  far  as  this  office  is  concern 
ed,  but  I  fear  a  delay  will  be  occasioned,  unless  you  otherwise  direct,  inas 
much  as  the  deputy  naval  officer,  who  is  now  acting  in  chief,  during  the 
absence  of  his  father,  by  sickness,  refuses  to  certify  the  abstracts  of  bond* 
taken  and  bonds  paid. 


Rep.  No.  669.  439 

The  naval  officer,  as  you  well  know,  keeps  no  bond  account,  and  thei 
<aminations  have  always  been  made  upon  proofs  exhibited  by  this  depart" 
33nt.  Such  proofs  have  been  shown  in  the  present  instance,  and  appear" 
<  satisfactory  to  the  examining  clerk  from  that  office  ;  yet  the  present  act- 
jk  incumbent  has  returned  the  bond  accounts,  with  a  reply,  that  he  is  un- 
filing to  sign  them  in  the  absence  of  his  father. 

I  From  your  anxiety  to  forward  the  accounts  to  Government,  I  apprehend 
lis  circumstance  may  cause  you  some  embarrassment. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  A.  FLEMING,  Auditor. 

J.  H  jyt,  Collector,  §-c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  10,  1S39. 
Sir  :  I  wrote  to  the  First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  on  the  19th  of  De- 
,:mber  that  I  would  forward  my  accounts  of  the  3d  quarter  of  last  year  by 
le  10th  of  January. 

I  signed  part  of  them  yesterday,  and  to-day  I  received  the  accompanying 
3te  from  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor,  from  which  it  would  seem  that  they 
ive  been  in  fact  examined  by  the  appointed  agents  of  the  naval  officer, 
at  a  certificate  is  wanting  to  the  "  abstract  of  bonds  taken  and  bonds  paid," 
i  consequence  of  the  sickness  of  the  naval  officer,  and  a  want  of  business 
abits  in  his  representative. 

As  I  cannot  consent  to  delay  my  accounts  till  children  grow  up  to  be  men, 
send  them  without  the  certificate,  and  I  shall  not  again  ask  the  naval  offi- 
ix  for  a  certificate.  The  accounts  are,  of  course,  subject  to  your  direction  ; 
id  if  the  Department  choose  to  ask  for  a  certificate,  that  is  their  business, 
rid  not  mine.  I  cannot  do  it.  I  apprized  the  naval  officer,  some  days 
nee,  that  the  accounts  should  be  sent  this  day,  at  all  events. 

It  has  been  usual,  I  understand,  not  to  send  one  quarter's  accounts  till 
ie  preceding  one  had  been  examined.  I  only  allude  to  this  by  way  of 
xpressing  a  hope  that  I  may  know  the  result  of  the  examination  of  the 
econd  quarter's  accounts  at  as  early  a  day  as  practicable. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

:  Jesse  Miller,  Esq.,  First  Auditor. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  17,  1339. 
Sir  :  The  enclosed  declaration  was  served  on  me  the  12th  instant.  The 
ibject  of  the  suit  is  this,  viz  : 

1.  The  plaintiff  was  a  deputy  collector  in  my  office  in  April  last,  when 
ertain  goods  were  seized,  imported  by  Charles  W.  Dayton. 

2.  The  goods  were  condemned,  and  the  proceeds  paid  into  my  hands. 

3.  Mr.  Bleecker  puts  in  his  claim  to  a  share  of  that  fund  as  informer. 

!  4.  The  surveyor  and  naval  officer  gave  me  notice  not  to  pay  over  to 
Mr.  Bleecker. 

5.  I  have  made  a  distribution  of  the  fund  under  the  act,  and  have  takea 
ponds  of  indemnity  from  the  naval  officer  and  surveyor. 


440 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Our  defence  is : 

1.  13y  law  a  deputy  cannot  be  an  informer,  as  he  is  a  "component  part 
of  the  collector,  who  is  expressly  prohibited. 

2.  Mr.  Bleecker  did  not  give  the  information  contemplated  by  law. 
We  think  the  question  involves  the  construction  of  an  act  or  acts  c 

Congress  ;  we  are  entitled  to  try  it  in  the  courts  of  the  United  States. 

We  think  also  we  can  bring  up  the  law  question  on  a  plea,  and  for  tha 
purpose  get  a  bill  of  particulars,  &c. 

This  is  not  your  official  business,  and  therefore  we  shall  send  a  fee  ii 
all  proper  time. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  2,  1839. 

Sir:  Having  had  occasion  recently  to  look  over  my  corresponden 
with  the  Treasury  Department,  I  was  surprised  to  find  that  I  had  no  evi 
dence  on  my  book  of  having  reported  to  you  several  appointments  I.  ha 
made,  and  some  as  long  back  as  the  1 3th  of  October.  My  neglect  in  thi 
respect  is  incredible  to  myself,  and  I  feel  that  I  am  entitled  to  censure  fo 
the  omission ;  but  I  will,  in  advance,  plead  guilty  and  crave  indulgence 
under  a  promise  that  it  shall  not  occur  again. 

On  the  13th  of  October  I  received  a  letter  from  the  surveyor,  stating  th 
absolute  necessity  of  two  additional  measurers  ;  I  accordingly  appointed 
under  a  full  belief  of  the  necessity,  William  E.  Cruger  and  Joseph  Hop 
kins  as  such  measurers. 

On  the  30th  of  November  I  appointed  Edward  C.  Thurston,  ganger,  i 
place  of  William  Thompson,  deceased. 

On  the  same  day  I  appointed,  as  inspectors — Levi  D.  Slam  in  place  o 
Cruger,  promoted  to  measurer;  Nathaniel  Devean  in  place  of  Davi 
Brooks,  deceased;  Israel  0.  Disos  way  in  place  of  Denyse  Denyse,  removed; 
Henry  Raymond  in  place  of  John  Hopson,  removed  ;  Charles  McDermott 
in  place  of  Stephen  Titus,  removed;  Lockwood  X.  Campbell  in  place  of 
Henry  Whiting,  removed. 

On  the  same  day  I  also  appointed,  as  night  watch: — Parker  MurenJ 
Leonard  Dunkley,  Thomas  Bloomer,  Philip  G.  Jurisch,  Joseph  E.  Hat- 
field, and  Richard  Harrold,  in  the  room  of  Israel  0.  Disosway,  promoted. 

On  the  27th  of  December  I  appointed,  as  inspector — David  Holly  in  the 
room  of  John  A.  Holly,  deceased. 

On  the  24th  of  January  I  appointed,  as  inspector — Alexander  Bidwell  in 
the  place  of  B.  Hilton,  resigned. 

On  the  2d  of  February  I  appointed,  as  inspectors — William  D.  Jones  in 
place  of  Thomas  L.  Jones,  resigned;  Thomas  Carlin  in  place  of  William 
M.  Fish,  resigned.* 

Since  the  appointment  of  the  measurers  referred  to,  Mr.  Sebring,  a  meas- 
urer, has  died,  and  I  have  not  filled  up  the  place,  and  shall  not,  if  there  is 
not  a  necessity  for  it. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669.  441 

Treasury  Department,  February  4,  1S39. 
Sir-:  Your  letter  of  the  2d  instant  is  this  day  received,  and  the  appoint- 
lents  therein  referred  to  are  confirmed,  viz:    (See  names  in  preceding 
letter.) 

I  hope  the  nominations  will  be  hereafter  submitted  immediately. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 




),-,  - 

Treasury  Department,  February  13,  1839. 
Sir:  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  11th,  I  have  to  remark., 
that  if  the  deposites  made  by  you  are  taken  from  former  balances  reported 
as  on  hand,  the  Department  will  be  enabled  to  draw  understandingly.  It 
is  probable  that  there  may  not  be  many  more  deposites  of  the  same  char- 
is  acter  needed  until  Congress  shall  legislate  upon  the  subject.    Should  the 
•  llatter  not  be  the  case,  I  will  adopt  some  uniform  and  regular  mode  of  ac- 
complishing the  object,  and  will  give  to  your  suggestions  a  careful  con- 
sideration. 

I  remain,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 



,< 

Custom-House,  New  York,  February  16,  1S39. 

Sir:  I  deposited,  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  in  the  Bank  of 
America,  from  the  receipts  of  this  week,  $140,000,  as  I  have  before  ap- 
i  prized  you;  and  have  transferred,  this  day,  to  his  separate  credit,  the  sum 
of  $120,000,  as  the  balance  of  those  receipts. 

The  cash  duties  and  deposites  for  unascertained  duties  have  been  light. 
Yhe  cash  duties  amount  only  to  $67,101  33. 

In  your  letter  of  the  13th  instant  you  say :  "  If  the  deposites  (meaning 
the  deposites  in  the  Bank  of  America)  made  by  you  are  taken  from  former 
balances  reported  as  on  hand,  the  Department,  will  be  enabled  to  draw  un- 
derstandingly." My  former  instructions  were  to  transfer,  every  Saturday, 
to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  to  meet  his  drafts,  the  receipts  of 
the  week.  This  I  have  invariably  done  since  the  instructions  were 
received ;  and  I  considered  that  he  alone  was  entitled  to  draw  for  it,  as 
well  because  that  was  the  instruction,  as  from  the  fact  that  the  money  so- 
transferred  stood  on  the  books  of  this  office  to  his  credit,  and  also  on  the 
1  weekly  returns  transmitted  to  him  and  to  you. 

When  your  directions  came  to  make  the  deposite  of  $200,000  in  the 
Bank  of  America,  I  had  no  money  to  the  general  credit  of  the  United 
States  out  of  which  the  deposite  could  be  made,  and  I  had  no  authority  to 
charge  the  money  to  the  Treasurer,  and  I  therefore  made  the  following 
entries  in  my  cash  book  to  meet  the  case  : 

February  5,  1839.  Placed  in  the  Bank  of  America,  to  the  credit  of  the 
Treasurer  of  the  United  .  States,  as  per  receipt  of  D.  Thompson,  cashier. 


442 


Sep;  No.  669. 


this  date,  §200,000,  supplied  by  the  check  of  Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  and  is  fcj 
be  deducted  from  this  account  whenever  the  accumulations  shall  reach  thd 
amount  required. 

February  8.  Amount  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States  Treasu- 
rer, in  the  Bank  of  America,  on  the  5th  instant,  and  now  carried  out  in 
conformity  with  the  entry  of  that  date  in  this  book,  $200,000. 

The  same  entry,  in  form,  was  made  as  to  the  deposite  this  week  of  the 
$140,000;  and,  inasmuch  as  it  confused  our  accounts  somewhat, 'I  sug-j 
gested  that  the  Treasurer  should  draw  for  any  amount  you  wanted  de- 
posited. 

From  this  you  will  perceive  that  I  borrowed  from  the  Treasurer's  fund, 
to  meet  your  drafts  or  directions,  till  I  could  collect  enough  from  the  cus- 
toms to  meet  them ;  but  no  entry  appears  to  the  Treasurer's  account  in 
relation  to  it,  but  was  entered  on  my  cash  books,  as  above  stated. 

I  think  I  have  now  made  myself  understood. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  February  22,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  transmit,  herewith,  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  to  the  Department 
by  Mr.  Adam  W.  Spies,  of  New  York,  suggesting  that  frauds  are  commit- 
ted on  the  revenue  by  the  practice  of  merchants  abroad  in  sending  two 
sets  of  invoices,  not  corresponding  in  character,  of  the  same  goods.  I 
have  to  recall  your  attention  to  the  matter,  and  to  request  you  to  take  the 
most  efficient  steps  to  enforce  the  revenue  laws,  and  to  give  such  informa- 
tion to  any  of  the  other  collectors  as  you  may  deem  material  to  guard 
them  against  the  practices  stated,  as  you  no  doubt  are  familiar  with  the  ^e 
operations. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Hsq.,Collec!or  fyc. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  25,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  favor  of  the  22d  instant,  enclosing  a  copy  of  a  letter 
from  Mr.  A.  W.  Spies.  This  gentleman  has  been  of  service  to  me  in  de- 
tecting irregularities  on  the  part  of  importers  of  hardware;  being  himself 
a  large  importer,  has  a  great  interest  in  seeing  that  the  laws  are  executed 
with  integrity. 

I  caused  to  be  published,  in  the  Evening  Post  of  this  city,  the  occurrence 
alluded  to  by  him,  in  the  hope  that  it  would  meet  the  eyes  of  other  revenue 
officers;  and  I  have  occasionally  made  private  communications  to  other 
collectors  on  kindred  subjects,  and  shall  continue  to  do  so  on  all  proper 
occasions,  for  I  appreciate  its  importance,  as  well  to  the  revenue  as  to  the 
fair  trader. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


443 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  25,  1839. 

Sir:  We  have  the  steamer  Liverpool  to-day,  from  Liverpool  the  7th 
instant.  There  is  nothing  especially  new.  The  King  of  France  has  dis- 
solved the  Chambers,  and  appealed  to  the  people  on  the  question  of  a 
ministry,  which  it  seems  he  could  not  form  to  please  himself. 

The  "Manchester  people  have  directed  their  agents  in  Liverpool  to  make 
np  rather  an  unfavorable  account  of  the  cotton  trade,  in  hopes,  no  doubt, 
to  affect  prices  on  this  side  the  water;  but  it  is  said,  the  holders  of  cot- 
ton will  not  give  way,  but  will  compel  the  spinners  to  buy.  I  think  the 
former  will  succeed. 

The  grain  market  has  fallen,  which  seems  more  favorable  for  the  repose 
of  the  money  market  in  England,  and  which  will  have  its  influence  here. 

The  Queen's  speech  has  come,  but  I  have  not  read  it. 

If  the  Government  is  disappointed  in  receiving  despatches,  it  may  be 
owing  to  a  mistake  in  the  hour  the  letter-bag  for  the  steamer  left  London. 

Mr.  Price's  son  has  published,  in  the  Courier  of  this  morning,  a  letter 
irom  his  father,  which  I  have  not  read,  and  do  not  mean  to  read.  1  am 
quite  tired  of  "the  rogues  and  roguery." 

Respectfully.  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon,  Levi  W codeury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  February  26,  1S39. 
Sir:  Mr.  David  S.  Lyon,  of  New  York,  has  informed  the  Department, 
that  you  have  refused  to  allow  him  to  transact  business  at  the  custom- 
house, as  the  attorney  or  agent  for  other  persons. 

If  this  is  the  fact,  I  should  be  pleased  to  be  furnished  with  the  reasons 
which  induced  the  exercise  of  such  power  in  the  case  in  question. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY. 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hott,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Cxjstom-House,  New  York,  February  28,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  favor  of  the  26th  instant,  calling  for  my  reasons  for 
prohibiting  Mr.  David  S.  Lyon  from  acting  as  the  attorney  or  agent  of  other 
persons,  in  transacting  business  at  the  custom-house. 
1  On  the  15th  instant,  1  addressed  to  Mr.  Lyon  a  letter,  a  copy  of  which 
1  now  send  you.    By  a  perusal  thereof,  you  will  perceive  that  I  state  a 
legal  proposition,  which  results  in  an  exclusion  of  Mr.  Lyon  from  trans- 
acting business  as  an  agent  at  this  ornce.    The  day  after  1  wrote  that  let- 
ter, I  published  to  the  world  that  I  offered  to  prove,  before  the  investigat- 
ing committee,  "that  Mr.  Lyon,  as  deputy  naval  officer  and  deputy 
collector,  was  guilty  of  corruption  in  office."    1  have  since  understood 
that  Mr.  John  T.  Dolan  offered  to  prove  to  you  and  the  Comptroller  that 
he  was  a  corrupt  man  while  lie  held  the  orlke  of  deputy,  but  that  you  re- 
17* 


444 


Hep.  No.  663. 


quired  him  to  make  the  charge  in  writing,  and,  as  he  had  got  hi-msel 
righted  in  the  matter,  through  your  instrumentality,  he  permitted  the  sub 
ject  to  drop. 

If  Mr.  Lyon  should  venture  upon  a  suit  against  me  for  the  publication; 
referred  to,  I  expect  to  be  able  to  prove  that,  while  deputy  collector,  Ik 
received  money  for  duties  which  he  never  paid  to  the  United  States,  ancf 
to  recover  which  I  shall  direct  the  district  attorney  to  bring  a  suit,  as  soon 
as  the  papers  can  be  made  up.  I  expect  also  to  prove  that,  while  dep^1 
uty  collector,  he  embezzled  a  bag  of-specie,  which  the  owner  has  neveM 
yet  been  satisfied  for,  and,  for  the  honor  of  the  department,  I  have  direct- 
ed a  suit  to  be  brought  against  him. 

The  immediate  cause  for  writing  him  the  letter  of  the  15th  instant  wasi 
from  a  knowledge  of  his  having  made  erroneous  statements  before  the  in-) 
vestigating  committee,  knowing  such  statements  to  have  been  erroneous;, 
for  all  which,  and  for  other  causes  too  numerous  to  detail  in  this  commutih 
cation,  I  made  up  my  mind  that  he  was  [too]  dangerous  a  man,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  public  interests,  to  be  permitted  to  act  as  agent  for  others,  in 
doing  business  in  this  office. 

I  think  I  laid  down  the  legal  proposition  correctly.  I  must  necessarily 
be  the  judge  of  the  legality  of  the  instrument  by  which  the  power  isl 
sought  to  be  delegated  to  any  one  who  proposes  to  act  for  others;  and,  byi 
the  same  rule,  I  must  be  the  judge  of  the  fitness  of  the  person  to  exercise 
that  delegated  power.  I  do  not  permit  minors  to  act  as  attorneys;  and  I 
do  not  see  why  I  should  permit  one  of  a  notoriously  bad  character  to  min- 
gle with  respectable  gentleman  in  the  transaction  of  business. 

In  addition  to  what  I  have  already  stated,  Mr.  Lyon  has  thrown  all 
possible  embarrassments  in  the  way  of  the  transaction  of  the  public  busi- 
ness, that  he  could,  since  I  left  him  out  as  deputy.  He  has  created  all  the 
excitement  he  could,  amongst  the  importers,  against  the  officers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  and  sought  to  bring  their  official 
acts  and  decisions  into  disrepute. 

The  course  I  have  taken  towards  him  is  of  no  especial  detriment,  as  his 
partners  have  since  done  all  the  business  that  he  might  himself  have 
done,  and  he  can  as  well  do  the  in-door  as  the  out-door  part  of  the  busi- 
ness of  their  office. 

I  cannot  but  believe  that  the  views  I  have  taken  are  correct,  and  I  de- 
sire that  Mr.  Lyon  may  be  furnished  with  a  copy  of  this  letter. 

I  am,  &.c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  March  1,  1839. 
Sir  :  On  the  1st  of  February,  I  wrote  you  that  the  receipts  at  this  office 
for  the  month  of  January  were  as  follows  : 

For  bonds    -  35647,566  25 

For  cash  duties        -  -  -  -     501,644  15 

For  other  receipts    -  2,061  35 

 #U5I,27J.  75 


Rep.  No.  669.  445 

The  receipts  for  the  month  of  February  were  as  follows  : 
For  bonds  -----  #691,219  13 
For  cash  duties        -  -  -     419,872  93 

For  other  receipts    -  3,32(5  21 

 $1, 114,413  32 


Making  for  the  two  months  -  $2, 265,090  07 

which  exceeds  the  average  of  my  estimate  of  the  19th  of  November,  for 
the  year  1839.  In  the  item  of  "cash  duties"  for  both  months,  are  includ- 
ed the  deposite  for  unascertained  duties,  which  amount  of  deposites  for 
the  two  months,  not  liquidated,  is  the  sum  of  $113,30S. 

I  see,  by  the  papers  that  came  this  morning,  that  the  Supreme  Court 
have  decided  that  silk  hosiery,  by  the  act  of  1833,  is  free.  I  hope  the 
Department  will  lose  no  time  in  giving  me  instructions  in  relation  to  the 
results  that  must  follow  that  decision.  It  may  or  may  not  be  broad  enough, 
in  the  reasoning  of  the  court,  to  reach  all  silk  goods,  whether  they  be  mil- 
linery or  ready-made  clothing, 

I  wrote  the  Comptroller,  a  few  days  since,  that  I  thought  it  would  be 
well  to  procure  the  opinion  of  the  court,  as  soon  as  pronounced,  to  the 
end  that  action  should  be  had  under  it  without  delay. 

I  wrote  you,  a  few  days  since,  that  it  was  my  intention  to  visit  Wash- 
ington as  soon  as  the  decisions  took  place.  If  you  will  indicate  to  me 
any  time  that  you  would  particularly  desire  me  to  go  on,  I  will  endeavor 
to  make  the  arrangement  to  be  at  Washington  at  the  time  designated. 

We  are  quite  busy  just  now.  The  appraisers'  stores  are  full  of  goods,, 
from  cellar  to  garret,  awaiting  for  examination ;  and  it  is  supposed  that 
the  packets,  that  may  be  hourly  expected,  are  full.  Many  of  the  goods 
that  were  damaged  in  the  last  packets  have  been  sent  to  the  manufactur- 
ers, refitted,  and  are  now  on  their  way. 

I  remain,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodburf, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  March  7,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  received  this  morning  the  circular  under  date  of  the  4th  instant, 
from  the  Comptroller,  and  put  it  forthwith  into  operation.  I  have  read  the 
opinion  of  the  court  on  which  it  is  founded,  and  it  is  no  broader  than  the 
opinion  ;  but  it  is  nevertheless  so  broad  that  I  think  it  may  reduce  the 
amount  of  the  revenue  to  accrue  at  this  port  below  the  amount  I  had  esti- 
mated. It  will  embrace  certain  articles  that  no  one  has  heretofore  object- 
ed to  paying  duties  upon,  but  this  we  cannot  help.  It  is  an  exposition  of 
the  law  by  the  competent  branch  of  the  Government,  and  we  have  nothing 
to  do  but  execute  it  as  it  has  been  expounded  by  that  authority. 

I  do  not  think  I  shall  be  able  to  leave  for  Washington  till  I  have  disposed 
of  the  protest  fund. 

The  money  market  is,  to  use  the  technical  phrase,  "  very  tight,"  and  I 
do  not  desire  to  leave  for  an  hour,  till  those  who  are  entitled  to  have  their 
money  back  actually  receive  it. 


446  Rep.  No.  669. 


I  sent  a  copy  of  the  circular  to  the  district  attorney  to-day,  with  instruc 
tions  to  settle  all  the  suits  against  me  immediately,  and  stop  the  costs. 

1  will,  as  soon  as  we  have  disposed  of  that  part  of  the  protest  fund  which 
will  fall  within  the  circular,  have  the  interest  account  made  up  with  the 
bank,  and  settled. 

Respectfully,  &c. 


Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


HOYT,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  March  11,  1S39. 

Sir  :  Herewith  you  will  receive  the  return  of  moneys  received  and  paid 
at  this  office  during  the  past  week,  and  also  a  duplicate  account  of  Treasu- 
ry drafts  paid  during  the  same  period. 

You  will  also  receive  an  account  of  moneys  held  under  protest  and  on 
depo  site. 

I  wrote  you,  on.the  5th  instant,  that  I  had  put  the  second  section  of  the 
general  appropriation  law  into  operation  that  day.  Thai  section  requires 
that  all  moneys  paid  to  a  collector,  for  duties  unascertained  and  for  duties 
paid  under  protest,  shall  be  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  of  the 
United  States,  kept  and  disposed  of  as  all  other  money  paid  for  duties  is 
required  by  law  or  by  regulation  of  the  Treasury,  &c.  The  section  then 
goes  on  to  provide  for  the  manner  of  getting  the  money  out  of  the  Treasury. 

The  Comptroller's  circular  of  the  4th  March  directs,  in  the  last  clause, 
that,  in  cases  in  which  I  have  received  duties  under  protest,  on  any  of  the 
articles  now  declared  exempt  from  the  payment  of  duty,  I  am  to  refund 
the  said  duties  to  the  owners  of  the  goods. 

I  put  a  construction  on  the  law  and  the  circular  on  Saturday  last  to  this 
effect,  and  under  the  following  circumstances  :  In  the  course  of  the  last 
week,  after  I  had  put  the  law  in  operation,  and  before  the  circular  was  re- 
ceived, several  payments  had  been  made  in  the  cashier's  office  under  pro- 
test on  goods  which  the  circular  made  free,  and  the  receipt  of  the  money 
had  been  entered  on  the  cash  book,  as  all  others  were.  The  question  was, 
whether  I  could  return  the  money  to  the  owners  of  the  goods  without  war- 
rant from  the  Treasury,  as  the  section  referred  to  provides. 

Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor,  stated  that  I  could,  and  such  had  been  the 
uniform  practice  of  the  Department,  for  the  reason  that  the  money  was  not 
paid  into  the  Treasury  till  Saturday  of  each  week.  I  submitted  the  ques- 
tion to  the  district  attorney,  under  this  statement  of  facts  : 

1.  The  money  was  received  after  the  law  was  put  in  operation,  and  was 
regularly  entered  in  the  cash  book. 

°2.  That,  on  Saturday  of  each  week,  after  the  close  of  the  receipts  of  the 
dav  all  the  receipts  of  the  week  were  passed  to  the  separate  credit  of  the 
Treasurer,  as  well  for  money  under  protest,  and  for  unascertained  duties, 
as  for  all  other  receipts,  and  that  was  the  day  when  it  had  been  uniformly 
held  the  money  was  in  the  Treasury. 

Under  this  statement  of  the  facts,  Mr.  Butler  was  opinion  that  the  money 
m  those  cases  could  be  returned,  and  it  was  so  returned  accordingly.  Those 
cases  embraced  all  that  can  occur  under  the  circular,  and  I  was  therefore 
anxious  to  dispose  of  them,  to  avoid  any  confusion  in  the  accounts.  1 


Rep.  No.  669.  447 

thought  best  to  report  to  you  the  facts,  to  the  end  that  you  might  inform, 
me  if  I  had  put  a  wrong  construction  on  the  matter.  If  we  are  wrong  in 
considering  the  time  when  the  money  is  deemed  to  be  in  the  Treasury  ,  I 
would  like  to  be  informed  of  it,  with  reference  to  a  return  of  surpluses 
of  deposites  for  unascertained  duties.  You  are,  no  doubt,  about  causing 
instructions  to  be  made  out  upon  this  subject,  as  well  as  upon  the  other. 
To  enable  you  to  act  understanding^  on  the  subject,  I  will  state  what  has 
been  and  now  is  the  practice  of  this  office,  on  the  subject  of  these  depos- 
ites. The  importer,  on  entering  his  goods,  makes  his  deposite,  and  takes 
the  collector's  receipt  for  it.  When  the  amount  of  duty  is  ascertained,  it 
is  put  on  the  entry,  and  a  portion  of  the  deposite,  adequate  to  the  settle- 
ment  of  the  duty,  is  taken  for  that  purpose,  and  the  balance  is  refunded 
to  the  importer,  and  our  receipt  taken  up.  If  a  deposite  should  be  made  on 
Monday,  and  the  duty  ascertained  by  Saturday,  so  as  to  pass  the  entry 
through  the  accounts  on  the  latter  day,  before  a  transfer  is  made  to  the 
credit  of  the  Treasurer,  can  we  return  the  surplus  without  a  warrant  ?  I 
think  we  can,  for  the  reason  that  the  money  deposited  on  Monday  does 
not  go  into  the  Treasury  till  the  Saturday  following.  It  is  on  this  plan 
that  we  are  constantly  correcting  errors  that  must  necessarily  happen  in 
the  hurry  of  business.    I  present  these  views  to  your  consideration. 

By  the  statement  of  money  under  protest,  sent  herewith,  you  will  see  the 
amount  has  fallen  off.  We  did  not  begin  to  [refund]  till  Saturday;  it  was 
not  till  that  day  the  circular  appeared  in  print.  We  shall  probably  refund 
about  $3,000  a  day.  The  amounts  paid  by  individuals  are  small,  though 
the  aggregate  is  quite  large.  We  have  over  1,200  entries  of  the  kind,  and 
you  may  well  imagine  the  trouble  and  vexation  it  has  been  to  us. 

In  obedience  to  your  instructions  of  the  Sth  instant,  I  deposited  this  day, 
in  the  Bank  of  America,  to  the  special  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  $230,000. 

I  am  frequently  asked  whether  the  duties  paid  on  articles  now  declared 
to  be  free,  but  not  under  protest,  are  to  be  refunded.  I  would  be  glad  if 
you  would  cause  the  views  of  the  Department  to  be  communicated  to  me 
on  this  subject.  In  considering  this  question,  I  beg  to  refer  to  a  letter  from 
me  to  the  Comptroller,  under  date  of  30th  March,  1838,  and  his  reply  there- 
to, under  date  of  the  3d  April,  of  the  same  year.  It  is  no  very  pleasant 
reference  to  me.  and  it  may  not  be  to  him ;  but,  as  it  goes  back  to  the  be- 
ginning with  him  as  well  as  with  me  on  the  subject,  it  may  be  well  to  refer 
to  it.  I  should  have  written  him  separately,  but  from  my  very  pressing 
business. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasure  Department, 
First  Auditor's  Office,  February  18,  1839. 

Sir  :  Herewith  you  will  receive,  in  separate  packages,  two  lists  of  bon  ds 
taken  and  paid  within  the  third  quarter  of  1838,  forwarded  here  witho  ut 
the  certificate  of  the  naval  officer,  on  account,  as  stated,  of  his  indispositio  r 
It  is  presumed  and  hoped  that  by  this  time  he  will  be  able  to  attend  to  h  is 
duties. 


448 


Rep.  No.  669. 


You  are  therefore  requested  to  hand  them  to  him  for  his  examination 
and  certificate,  and  to  request  that  they  will  be  returned  as  soon  as  prac- 
ticable. 

A  failure  on  his  part  to  perform  this  duty  would  render  it  necessary 
here  to  report  the  fact  to  the  proper  authority. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  MILLER. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  March  16,  1841. 

Sir  :  I  have  transferred  this  day  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treas- 
urer $200,000  for  the  receipts  of  this  week.  You  will  perceive  the 
amount  is  not  as  large  as  usual.  We  have  two  packets  in  port  now  with 
full  cargoes,  and  they  will  probably  commence  discharging  early  next 
week.  One  of  them  is  a  Liverpool,  and  the  other  a  Havre  packet.  The 
former  has  a  large  quantity  of  woollens.  I  have  directed  every  package 
lo  be  sent  to  the  appraisers'  store  for  examination.  Great  complaints  still 
exist  among  manufacturers  and  merchants  in  relation  to  the  importation  of 
woollen  goods,  upon  the  ground  that  they  find  their  way  into  market  and 
are  sold  tor  less  than  they  can  be  fairly  imported.  I  have  taken  great 
pains  to  search  out  the  difficulty ;  but  I  have  not  been  able  to  arrive  at  a 
satisfactory  result,  from  the  present  state  of  things  as  they  are  repre- 
sented to  me.  I  have  therefore  adopted  the  plan  of  examining  every 
package  by  this  one  packet,  to  see  what  developments  may  take  place. 
This  may  delay  the  entry  of  some  portion  of  the  goods,  for  we  have 
known  instances  of  invoices  being  verified  in  England  four  months  after 
the  goods  had  been  in  public  store  here,  which  proves  that  the  importer 
did  not  venture  to  enter  the  goods  on  the  first  invoices. 

I  am  apprehensive  that  the  standards  of  value  fixed  by  our  appraisers 
for  woollen  goods  are  too  low,  and  I  have  frequently  so  stated  to  them, 
but  they  do  not  raise  it.  The  manufacturers  so  inform  me.  I  would 
therefore,  be  glad  if  you  would  write  a  letter  to  them  making  the  sug- 
gestion, but  not  as  coming  from  me.  It  is  my  intention  to  call  in  others 
to  examine  the  goods  by  the  packet  referred  to;  but  I  would  rather  a  sug- 
gestion should  come  from  you. 

If  the  goods  are  all  promptly  entered,  I  anticipate  large  cash  duties  for 
the  next  two  weeks. 

Since  writing  the  preceding,  I  am  informed  that  the  collector  at  Balti- 
more permits  baizes  and  ingrain  carpeting  to  be  bonded  for.  This  is  not 
our  rule  here,  and  we  think  not  the  right  rule ;  but  if  it  is  permitted  at 
one  port,  it  certainly  should  be  at  all  the  ports. 

It  makes  a  large  difference  in  the  amount  of  money  required  to  do  busi- 
ness upon,  and  a  vast  difference  in  the  interest  account  of  the  importer. 

The  information  came  from  Mr.  Blackburne,  of  Baltimore  ;  but  the 
person  informing  me  did  not  wish  the  name  to  be  used  so  that  the  infor- 
mation could  be  traced  to  him. 

The  importations,  as  you  know,  have  been  very  large  at  this  port  this 
season  ;  but  the  merchants  are  greatly  disappointed,  so  far,  in  sales  of 
goods.  The  West  and  Southwest  seem  to  stop  at  Philadelphia  to  purchase, 
and  for  the  reason,  as  is  supposed,  thai  they  aie  still  greatly  indebted 


Eep.  No.  669. 


in  this  city  and  would  not  probably  be  permitted  to  add  any  thing  to  the 
old  debt  in  the  shape  of  a  new  one.  The  business  prospects  are  not 
deemed  to  be  very  flattering,  in  the  estimation  of  many  of  our  most 
sagacious  men  of  business.  I  think  otherwise,  if  nothing  disturbs  the 
peaceable  relations  of  the  world. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 


Custom-House,  New  York,  March  18,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  am  happy  to  be  able  to  inform  you  that  the  bag  of  specie,  re- 
ferred to  in  my  letter  of  the  28th  February  last,  has  been  found  in  the 
Manhattan  Bank,  and  in  this  respect  Mr.  David  S.  Lyon  stands  exoner- 
ated in  all  things  except  carelessness.  We  do  not  discover  as  yet  that 
any  receipt  is  on  file  in  this  office  for  it,  nor  can  the  transaction  be  ex- 
plained. Who  might  have  hereafter  claimed  it  no  one  can  tell,  and  it 
was  not  found  until  a  suit  was  about  to  be  commenced  against  him  for  it. 

The  suit  has  been  directed  to  be  brought  for  the  recovery  of  the  money 
collected  by  Mr.  Lyon  for  duties. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  KOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  March  23,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  sample  of  goods  which  has  been  introduced  into 
this  market  under  the  idea  that  silk  is  the  component  of  chief  value. 

]  do  not  believe  it.  I  wish  you  to  hand  it  over  to  Messrs.  Lawrence 
and  have  it  thoroughly  and  correctly  analyzed,  and  see  of  what  materials 
and  their  proportions  it  is  composed. 

Be  pleased  to  have  a  return  made  to  me  as  soon  as  practicable.  I 
have  had  one  analysis  made  here  :  but  I  want  another,  as  our  appraisers 
have  returned  that  the  chief  value  is  silk. 

I  do  not  believe  it.  You  will  please  to  have  reference  to  the  cost  of 
the  raw  material,  before  any  labor  is  bestowed  upon  it. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

George  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  April  1,  1839. 

Sir  :  Herewith  you  will  receive  the  return  of  money  received  and  paid 
at  this  office  during  the  last  week,  and  also  a  duplicate  account  of  Treas- 
ury drafts  paid  during  the  same  period. 

You  will  also  receive  an  account  of  the  money  held  by  me  under  pro- 
test and  on  deposite. 


450 


Hep,  No.  669, 


As  I  suggested  in  my  letter  of  the  30th  ultimo,  I  send  the  returns  in\ 
the  usual  form,  and  the  naval  officer  will  examine  and  make  up  his  certi- 
ficate from  the  copies  I  keep.    I  do  not  think  the  naval  officer  can  make  . 
the  examination  in  one  day,  and  therefore  I  think  this  course  is  prefera- 
ble, until  we  ascertain  how  much  time  is  required  for  the  examination. 

The  monthly  account  will  be  forwarded  with  all  despatch.  We  had 
two  more  packets  yesterday — one  from  Liverpool  and  the  other  from 
Havre.    The  latter  has  a  small  cargo. 

You  will  perceive,  by  the  return  I  make  of  money  under  protest,  that 
there  is  $103,910  18.  This  money,  you  will  recollect,  has  never  been  in  the  j 
Treasury.    It  will  diminish  this  week  ;  and  as  the  circuit  court  commenced 
its  session  to  day,  when  other  questions  will  be  tried,  and  I  am  apprehen-  ; 
sive  that  we  shall,  as  usual,  be  defeated  in  our  construction  of  the  tariff,  J 
in  that  event,  our  refunding  may  be  quickenedc 

I  can  now  have  the  use  of  the  general  cash  book  to  write  up  the  old 
deposite  account,  for  the  reason  that  we  commence  a  new  cash  book  to 
day.  We  shall  have  the  old  deposite  account  liquidated  as  soon  as  the 
work  can  be  done,  and  get  rid  of  it  in  the  course  of  this  month.  You 
will  see  by  the  return  it  is  now  $21,474. 

I  am  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  April  12,  1839. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  28lh  of  March,  in  relation  to  the  compensation 
to  certain  officers  attached  to  this  office,  came  to  hand  in  due  season ;  but 
I  have  not  had  the  leisure  till  now  to  make  an  investigation  to  see 
whether  your  objections  could  be  overcome. 

In  the  absence  of  the  usual  provision  to  make  up  the  deficiency  in  the 
emolument  account,  for  the  compensation  to  the  clerks  in  this  office,  you 
have  authorized  us  to  pay  two  dollars  a  day,  in  pursuance  of  the  pro- 
visions of  the  second  section  of  the  compensation  law  of  1799. 

I  have  prepared  the  following  statement,  to  see  what  has  been  the  usual 
deficiencies : 

In  1833  dutiesaccrued  to  $13,039,181  08;  deficiency  in  fees  $22,641  81 


1834  "  10,183,153  64  "  31,602  84 

1835  "  14,468,116  04  "  25,172  00 

1836  «  17,114,305  22  "  22,717  74 

1837  «  9,487,598  60  "  43,305  87 

1838  «-  10,494,015  34  "  42,706  48 


You  will  perceive  by  this  that  the  less  business  we  do  the  greater  the 
deficiency  is,  and  that  this  deficiency  has  never  exceeded  $43,305  87  ; 
and  the  present  year  of  1839  it  will  probably  not  exceed  $35,000. 

We  have  80  clerks  in  the  office,  and  at  the  rate  of  two  dollars  a  dayy 
for  every  business  day,  would  make  $48,000,  which,  you  will  perceive, 
is  more  than  the  deficiency  will  be,  and  that  therefore  you  have  the 
power  to  provide  for  the  cases  I  referred  to. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  ike  Treasury. 


Sep.  No.  669. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  April  12,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  letter  addressed  to  rae  by  the  markers  of  this 
port,  under  date  of  the  8th  instant,  by  which  you  will  perceive  they  are 
rather  badly  off. 

On  looking  at  the  second  section  of  the  compensation  act  of  1799,  i 
observe  your  power  to  allow  the  two  dollars  a  day  applies  to  "  every 
other  person  that  the  collector  may  find  it  necessary  and  expedient  to  em- 
ploy," &c.t  u  or  in  any  other  way  in  aid  of  the  revenue." 

This  allowance  to  the  markers  would,  with  the  fees,  in  all  probability  , 
enable  them  to  live. 

This  system  1  think  much  preferable  to  the  one  recently  provided  for 
in  the  appropriation  acts.  The  allowance  "  of  expenses"  is  liable  to 
abuse,  and  it  is  almost  impossible  to  prevent  it.  If  an  out-and-out  com- 
pensation is  allowed,  without  reference  to  expenses,  it  will  probably  be 
found  to  be  much  more  economical. 

The  same  remarks  applicable  to  markers  apply  to  weighers.  The  fees 
of  gaugers  and  measurers  will  make  the  compensation  to  those  officers 
more  than  they  formerly  received.  It  is  the  weighers  and  markers  that 
will  suffer ;  and  1  think,  if  you  agree  with  me  that  you  have  the  power, 
the  allowance  of  two  dollars  a  day  should  be  granted  to  them. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  April  12,  1839. 
Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  6th  instant  has  been  received.    I  hope  the 
receipts  will  continue  to  be  liberal;  but  1  fear  in  a  few  months  they  will 
decline  sensibly. 

The  decisions  of  the  courts  on  the  tariff  will  take  from  us  half  a  million 
this  year  or  more,  if  all  of  them  are  carried  into  effect. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  oj  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq,,  Collector.  &c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  15,  1S39. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  you  the  statement  of  the  amount  of 
bonds  taken  and  liquidated  in  this  district  for  the  month  of  January  last, 
by  which  you  will  perceive  the  amount  is  $1,270,026  02. 

You  will  recollect  that,  in  my  letter  of  20th  and  21st  of  March,  I 
estimated  the  bonds  for  January  would  amount  to  $  1,200,000.  You  will 
notice  we  over-run  $70,026  02  in  this  month,  but  we  may  fall  short  as 
ifluch  perhaps  the  next  month. 

I  now  only  advert  to  it,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  [rule]  we 
adopted  for  estimating  is  probably  a  very  accurate  one,  so  that,  with  very 
little  trouble,  1  can  at  any  time  give  you  an  estimate  for  any  month  or 
part  of  month. 


452  Rep.-  No.  669. 

I  do  not  know  how  much  longer  the  courts  will  permit  us  to  collect  any 
revenue.  The  decision  at  Baltimore  if  sustained,  will  cut  in  upon  us 
very  much. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYTj  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  *1pril  20,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  18th  instant  in  relation  to  the  markers. 
They  have  again  addressed  mc,  and  I  enclose  their  communication. 

You  will  recollect  that  the  Attorney  General  directed  that  the  markers 
must  be  selected  from  among  the  number  of  inspectors  nominated  by  the 
collector.  They  are  then  inspectors  of  the  customs,  and  the  question  isr 
whether  they  cannot  be  paid  as  such.  The  next  difficulty  is  in  relation 
to  the  expenses  they  are  necessariSv  put  to.  They  can  receive  a  com- 
pensation but  in  one  capacity ;  but  I  think  it  competent  for  you  to  direct 
me  to  audit  their  expenses,  and  pass  them  to  the  debit  of  the  contingent 
expenses  for  collecting  the  revenue. 

We  must  have  markers  in  some  form  or  other,  and  no  one  will  consent^ 
I  think,  to  serve  in  the  capacity,  and  trust  to  Congress  for  a  future  re- 
muneration. Indeed  no  one  would  take  the  office,  if  they  had  the  means 
of  otherwise  living,  and  therefore  it  is  that  compensation  in  present,  and 
vot  in  future,  is  absolutely  necessary. 

If  the  plan  now  suggested  fails,  I  have  no  other  expedient  to  resort  to. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Sir 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  23,  1839. 
I  have  this  day  seized  six  cases  of  hardware,  marked  as  follows 
No.  27,  invoiced  at  £147  16  6,  appraised  at 


28 
29 
30 
33 
36 


127  15  0 
142  19  0 
104    8  6 


£633    9  0 


46  10  6  " 


£181    4  0 

176  2  0 
188  16  6 

177  5  a 
81  10  6 
58    0  0 

£829  18  0 


They  were  imported  by  Louis  &  Meir,  in  the  steamer  Great  Western, 
in  the  present  month.    I  now  send  you  the  following  papers: 

1.  The  entry  sworn'to  by  Joseph  M.  Meir,  on  the  15th  instant,  before 
Deputy  Ferguson. 

2.  The  invoice. 

3.  The  appraisement. 


Eep.  No.  669. 


453 


4aj  The  witnesses  as  to  value  are  H.  F.  Sands,  Mr.  Smith,  (of  the  house 
of  Young,  Smith  &  Co., )  and  Mr.  Chance.  The  two  latter  gentlemen  came 
out  in  the  same  vessel  with  the  importation,  and  know  the  value  of  the 
articles  in  the  Birmingham  market. 

I  wish  immediate  action  upon  the  matter. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  26,  1839. 
:       Sir  :  1  wrote  you  last  November  that  I  had  put  Joseph  R.  Bleecker,  a 
,e  deputy  in  this  office,  in  the  cashier's  department.    The  vacancy  thus 
'  '  created  at  the  deputy's  desk  was  not  filled  until  a  few  days  since,  when  I 
placed  Charles  F.  Clinch,  then  an  inspector,  at  that  desk  ;  and  I  now  nom- 
inate him  as  such  deputy  in  the  room  of  Mr.  Bleecker. 

Joseph  Stevens,  a  weigher,  died  a  few  days  since  ;  and  I  now  nominate 
William  E.  Cruger,  a  measurer,  in  his  place,  to  take  effect  from  the  first 
of  May  next. 

»  1  nominate  Alfred  G.  Stevens,  the  son  of  the  late  Joseph  Stevens,  as 
'*  measurer,  in  the  place  of  William  E.  Cruger,  promoted,  to  take  effect 
5  from  the  first  of  May  next. 

1  nominate  John  McGioin,  a  former  inspector,  an  inspector  in  the  room 
of  Charles  P.  Clinch,  promoted,  to  take  effect  from  first  May  next. 

I  nominate  Charles  K.  Smith,  night  inspector,  in  the  room  of  John  Cal- 
vin, resigned. 

Complaints  continue  in  relation  to  woollens.  Large  quantities  are  sell- 
ing at  auction,  at  ruinous  sacrifices,  if  fairly  imported.  I  employed  one 
of  our  most  respectable  and  intelligent  merchants,  engaged  in  the  trade 
for  fifteen  days,  to  assist  the  appraisers  in  the  examination  of  the  cloths 
imported  in  the  Independence — every  package  of  which  was  ordered  for 
appraisement,  and  only  one  invoice  out  of  the  whole  was  put  up,  and 
that  but  ten  per  cent.  I  have  sent  to  England  for  a  machine  by  which  I 
can  test  the  length  of  the  pieces  with  great  facility,  and  I  expect  it  out 
in  the  steamer  Liverpool,  it  was  suggested  that  fraud  in  the  measure- 
\\  ment  was  practised. 

It  is  suggested  that  I  should  appoint  an  inspector  at  Riker's  island, 
about  nine  miles  from  the  city,  on  the  East  river,  to  watch  the  vessels 
from  Halifax  and  Nova  Scotia,  under  the  idea  that  smuggling  was  carried 
on  in  that  quarter;  and  it  is  also  suggested  that  there  should  be  a  night 
watch  at  Williamsburg,  a  large  village  on  the  Long  Island  shore,, 
opposite  the  northeast  part  of  the  city.  I  should  think  it  would  be  well 
to  make  the  experiment,  but  I  will  not  make  any  arrangement  for  such 
a  provision  without  your  approval  in  advance. 

I  would  be  glad  of  your  consideration  of  the  question,  in  reference  to 
the  compensation  to  be  paid  to  John  A.  Fleming,  auditor;  Lewis  M. 
Thurston,  assistant  sub-treasurer;  Sydney  Wetmore,  storekeeper  of  the 
port ;  and  George  A.  Wasson,  appraisers'  storekeeper. 

1  infer,  from  all  our  correspondence  on  the  subject,  that  I  am  at  liberty 


454 


Kep.  No.  669. 


to  advance  their  salaries  in  the  way  I  proposed,  and  I  shall  do  so  accord 
ingly,  if  I  do  not  hear  from  you  to  the  contrary.    1  allude  to  my  Letter  m 
you  of  25th  and  26th  March,  your  letter  to  me  of  28th  March,  my  lette ., 
of  12th  April,  and  your  answer  of  18th  April. 

We  had  two  packets  in  yesterday  from  Europe  with  very  good  cargoes 
besides  one  from  London  without  much  cargo,  and  some  transient  ves, 
sels.  We  hourly  expect  six  other  packets,  and  no  doubt  we  shall  have  s| 
busy  month  of  May.  Our  receipts  are  rather  light  this  week,  and  I  fea»> 
I  shall  fall  off  in  my  pro  rata  estimate  for  this  month.  Business  generally 
has  very  much  revived  since  the  arrival  of  the  Great  Western,  and  ouii 
people  are  in  good  spirits.  Sales  of  goods  are  large  and  at  good  prices. 
The  cotton  begins  to  go  forward,  and  the  money  market  is  of  course  reliev- 
ed to  a  great  extent. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  April  29,  1839. 

Sir  :  The  following  nominations,  submitted  in  your  letter  of  the  26th 
instant,  are  approved,  to  wit :  Charles  P.  Clinch,  as  deputy  collector,  in  the 
place  of  Joseph  R.  Bleecker,  assigned  to  duties  in  the  cashier's  department 
in  the  custom-house  ;  William  E.  Cruger,  as  weigher,  in  the  room  of  Joseph 
Stevens,  deceased  ;  Alfred  G.  Stevens,  as  measurer,  in  the  place  of  Wil- 
liam E.  Cruger,  appointed  weigher ;  John  McGloin,  as  inspector  of  the 
customs,  in  the  room  of  C.  P.  Clinch,  appointed  deputy  collector,  (the 
three  last  appointments  to  take  effect  on  the  first  proximo;)  Charles  K. 
Smith,  as  night  inspector  in  the  place  of  John  Calvin,  resigned,  to  re- 
ceive the  same  rate  of  compensation  allowed  to  his  predecessor. 

For  the  reasons  stated,  you  are  authorized  to  appoint  an  inspector  to 
reside  at  "  Riker's  island,"  and  also  a  night  inspector,  to  be  stationed  at 
**  Williamsburg,  on  Long  island,"  to  be  employed  temporarily  ;  and  you 
will  be  pleased  to  nominate  suitable  persons  for  these  situations. 

I  am  gratified  to  learn  the  measures  you  have  adopted  in  regard  to 
woollen  goods,  and  trust  that  every  precaution  will  be  taken  to  prevent 
any  frauds  being  practised  on  the  revenue  in  respect  to  these  or  any  other 
goods. 

In  regard  to  the  proposed  increase  of  the  compensations  of  Mr.  Flem- 
ing, the  auditor,  and  Mr.  Thurston,  one  of  your  clerks  recently  employed, 
1  have  only  to  reiterate  the  substance  of  what  was  stated  in  my  letter  of 
28th  March  last,  that  if  they  can  be  remunerated  out  of  the  emoluments 
arising  from  commissions  and  fees  in  the  collector's  office,  the  pay  pro- 
posed can  be  allowed.  If  this  should  not  prove  to  be  the  case,  there  is 
no  fund  at  the  disposal  of  the  Department  to  which  resort  can  be  had  for 
such  purpose. 

In  reference  to  the  two  inspectors  mentioned,  who  are  acting  as  public 
storekeepers,  and  whom  you  propose  to  appoint  deputy  collectors  with 
the  view  of  giving  them  higher  compensations,  it  is  to  be  observed,  that, 
if  this  arrangement  should  be  sanctioned,  they  must  be  paid  out  of  the 


"4 


Hep.  No.  669.  455 

emoluments  as  before  stated,  and  no  portion  of  it  could  be  allowed  out  of 
the  revenue,  as  the  14th  section  of  the  act  of  the  7th  May,  1822,  prohib- 
,(  its  (in  certain  ports  therein  mentioned,  of  which  New  York  is  one)  any 
person  holding  any  other  office  in  the  collection  of  (he  customs  from  being 
an  inspector.  Of  course,  should  Messrs.  Wetmore  and  Wasson  be  con- 
stituted deputy  collectors,  they  could  not  hold  the  situation  of  inspectors 
or  be  paid  in  that  capacity. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
3l"      Jesse  FIoyt,  Esq., 

Collector,  New  York. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  May  7,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  yours  of  the  5th  instant,  and  beg  permission  to 
present  my  views  in  regard  to  the  power  I  exercised  in  nominating  for 
your  approval  the  "  markers55  for  this  port.  I  am  fatigued,  as  no  doubt 
you  must  be,  with  this  unpleasant  subject ;  but  I  owe  it  to  myself,  as  well 
as  to  the  public  service,  to  have  a  right  understanding  upon  these  matters. 
I  have  examined  the  law  from  '89  to  the  present  time,  and  venture  to  say, 
there  is  an  entire  absence  of  authority  in  the  surveyor  to  appoint  a  deputy 
of  any  kind  or  for  any  purpose,  except  that  referred  to  in  the  twenty- 
second  section  of  the  act  of  599.  By  the  act  of  1817,  the  collector  may 
appoint  deputies  ;  but  this  act  is  nowhere  enlarged  beyond  the  act  of  '99, 
to  the  surveyor.  His  duties  are  pointed  out  by  the  twenty-first  section 
of  the  last-mentioned  act;  and  as  well  has  he  the  right  to  appoint  "dep- 
uties'''' to  assist  him  in  the  performance  of  these  various  duties,  referred 
to  there,  as  in  the  performance  of  the  duties  relating  to  the  "  inspection  ' 
of  distilled  spirits,  &c.  The  phrase  so  often  used  in  the  thirty-fifth  sec- 
tion of  the  act,  with  a  slight  change  of  words,  "  surveyor  or  officer  acting 
as  inspector  of  the  revenue  for  the  port,"  had  its  oiigin,  I  think,  in  the 
eighth  section  of  the  act  of  '89,  where  provision  is  made  for  the  collector, 
in  case  there  is  no  surveyor,  to  appoint  a  person  to  execute  the  duties, 
who  shall  have  the  compensation  and  the  power  of  an  inspector,  (see 
Story  edit.  vol.  I,  p.  17;)  and  a  similar  provision  is  contained  in  the 
twenty- first  section  of  the  act  of  599.  The  thirty-eighth  section  of  the 
last  act  carries  out  this  idea,  and  provides  that  the  landing  shall  be  had 
under  the  inspection  of  the  surveyor  "or  other  officer  acting  as  inspector 
ol  the  revenue  for  the  port;55  and  it  goes  on  to  add,  "and  such  of  the 
inspectors  of  the  customs  as  shall  be  deputed  by  him  for  that  purpose.V) 
This  is  confined  to  the  u  landing,"  which  gives  the  right  to  "-depute"  ah 
inspector  of  my  appointing;  and  the  proviso  to  that  section  explains  the 
construction  to  be  given  to  the  body  of  the  section.  The  authority  to  the 
collector,  in  the  twenty-first  section,  is  general,  to  appoint  "inspectors"  of 
the  port,  and  not  inspectors  of  the  customs,  as  they  are  called  in  subse- 
quent sections.  The  power  is  general  to  appoint  all  "  inspectors"  con- 
nected with  "the  collection  of  the  duties  on  imports  and  tonnage,55  for 
this  is  the  title  of  the  act. 

The  term  "surveyor55  is  not  synonymous  with  the  words  "'officer  aci- 


456  Rep.  No.  669, 

ing  as  inspector  of  the  revenue."    The  provision  of  law  for  the  appoin 
ment  of  the  two  officers  is  distinct,  and  I  cannot  find  any  authority  ft 
uniting  them.    In  some  cases  provision  is  made  that  the  collector  act  a 
surveyor,  and  even  naval  officer;  but  there  is  no  provision,  that  I  hav 
been  able  to  rind,  combining  the  two  offices  of  surveyor  and  inspector  J 
the  revenue  in  the  sense  you  suppose.    It  is  true  the  surveyor  ascertain 
the  proof  of  spirits  and  the  qualities  of  teas, &c,  but  this  does  not  necej 
sarily  make  him  an  inspector  of  the  revenue,  within  the  meaning  of  th  1 
act,  any  more  than  his  authority  to  examine  weights  and  measures,  o' 
goods  entered  for  export,  would  make  him  such  inspector;  nor  does  th 
authority  to  do  either  of  these  things  invest  him  with  the  power  to  ap' 
point  44  deputies"  to  perform  the  act  for  him.    The  collector,  in  fact,  is  th{ 
chief  officer  of  inspection  of  the  port,  and  all  others  connected  with  Ch< 
collection  of  duties  at  the  port  are  his  subordinates.    1  find  no  authority 
in  the  surveyor,  except  as  before  stated,  as  growing  out  of  the  twenty'' 
first  section,  or  in  any  inspector  of  the  revenue  "  to  appoint"  any  persoi 
to  represent  him,  except  in  the  single  case  of. the  teas  referred  to  in  th<' 
sixty-second  section  of  the  act  where  it  is  provided  that  one  of  (lie  key, 
may  be  kept  "  bv  such  other  person  as  he  shall  depute  or  appoint  in  hi: 
behalf." 

There  is  power  given  in  the  act  of  March  3,  1803,  to  the  President  tc; 
transfer  the  duties  of  the  office  of  "  supervisor"  to  some  other  person 
but  I  find  no  authority  to  invest  the  surveyor  with  the  office  of  44  inspec- 
tor of  the  revenue"  any  further  than  belongs  to  the  collector  or  naval 
officer  or  surveyor,  in  virtue  of  the  general  powers  with  which  they  art] 
invested  to  look  after  the  rights  of  the  Government.  The  act  of  18IJ 
(first  section)  continues  the  phraseology,  found  in  the  acts,  of  "surveyor 
or  office  of  inspector  of  the  revenue;"  and  the  same  necessity  exists  now 
as  in  '89  for  the  distinction,  for  there  are  man)'  places  where  there  is  no 
surveyor,  and  the  collector  acts  as  such  or  deputes  some  other  person.  F' 
am  strengthened  in  the  conclusion  I  come  to  by  the  act  of  1820,  limiting 
the  term  of  certain  offices.  The  surveyor  is  there  called,  what  he  alwaj  i 
in  fact  has  been,  "  surveyor  of  the  customs,"  and  as  an  officer,  in  my  judg- 
ment, wholly  separate  and  distinct  from  an  "inspector  of  the  revenue." 

The  commission  of  all  officers  employed  in  levying  or  collecting  (be 
public  revenue  44  not  required  to  be  recorded  in  the  Treasury  Department 
under  the  seal  of  that  Department"  emanates  from  the  port  or  place 
where  the  business  is  to  be  done,  with  the  exception  of  the  44  deputies" 
authorized  by  the  twenty-first  section  of  the  act  of  '99  ;  and  hence  the 
naval  officer  or  surveyor  are  not,  as  the  collector  is,  bound  to  submit  the 
nominations  for  your  approval,  because  they  have  not  the  power  of  op- 
pointing  any  deputies  but  such  as  are  last  referred  to,  and  then  only  as 
temporary.  It  was  the  intention  of  the  framers  of  the  law  44  that  (he 
principal  officer  of  the  Treasury  Department"  should  have  the  power  (o 
pass  upon  the  appointments  of  all  the  persons  holding  responsible  stations 
in  the  collection  of  the  revenue;  and  the  collector  is  accordingly,  by  the 
law,  required  to  pay  all  such  persons  for  their  services,  and  he  always  has 
paid  the  markers  or  deputy  inspectors.  The  naval  officer  and  surveyor 
both  pay  their  clerks  and  deputies  proper,  but  not  the  41  markers  and  §p 
he  does  not  pay  them,  he  has  no  power  to  create  them. 

It  is  true  the  act  of  1822  (section  15)  alludes  to  the  compensation  of 
a  deputy  surveyor,  but  that  is  a  deputy  authorized  by  the  act  of  '99 — at 


Bep.  No.  669. 


457 


least,  in  the  absence  of  any  authority  to  appoint  any  other  deputies,  it 
must  be  held  to  apply  only  to  that  act.  But  I  can  find  no  authority  for 
the  appointment  of  a  u  deputy  inspector  of  the  revenue."  The  term 
"marker"  has  not  crept  into  the  statute  book  before  1836.  In  the  third 
section  of  the  appropriation  act  of  July  4  of  that  year,  he  is  called  upon, 
by  the  name  ot  marker,  to  account  to  the  collector  for  certain  fees,  as  the 
weighers,  gaugers,  and  measurers  are  ;  and  so  again,  by  the  second  section 
of  the  act  of  March  3,  1837,  the  same  provision  is  continued.  1  have 
stated  that  the  word  "marker"  was  not  used  until  1836,  but  the  term 
"mark"  is  used  for  the  first  time  in  the  act  of  '99,  in  section  39.  In  the 
act  of  2d  March,  '99,  chap.  129,  fixing  the  compensation  of  the  u  officers," 
&c,  section  2,  the  weighers,  gaugers,  and  measurers  have  a  compensation 
for  marking  a  in  durable  characters"  certain  things ;  and  it  is  the  same 
"durable  characters"  that  the  39th  section  alludes  to.  Fees,  by  the 
second  section,  are  allowed  to  surveyor  or  inspectors  of  the  revenue  for 
ports,  and  to  the  deputies  of  the  inspectors  aforesaid  "  for  casks,"  &c,  by 
them  marked  and  returned  to  their  respective  principals.  The  markers 
make  the  same  returns  to  the  collector  that  the  weighers  or  measurers 
make  ;  and,  as  I  pay  both  of  them,  I  am  the  principal. 

But  this  is  the  only  instance  where  deputy  inspectors  are  named  ;  and 
there  is  no  more  authority  to  create  such  an  office,  except  the  general 
power  conferred  on  the  collector  to  appoint  inspectors,  than  there  is  for 
me,  as  collector,  to  create  the  office  of  auditor  and  cashier  of  the  custom- 
house. Such  officers  are  unknown  to  the  law,  but  we  nevertheless  call 
them  by  that  name.    It  is  arbitrary  and  unauthorized. 

These  are  some  of  the  reasons  to  induce  me  to  believe  that  1  am  right 
and  the  surveyor  wrong.  They  are  reasons  drawn  up  in  the  hurry  of 
business  in  the  course  of  the  morning,  and  must,  of  course,  be  very  crude 
and  unmethodical.  I  was  promised  a  written  opinion  from  Mi.  Price  to- 
day, and  in  the  absence  of  that  I  send  this. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully  vour  obedient  servant, 

J.  HOVT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  May  13,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  had  the  pistols  of  Strasser  again  appraised.  I  now  send 
you  both  appraisements,  by  which  you  will  see  the  difference  is  slight.  I 
a?so  send  you  an  invoice  of  Mr.  Boker  from  the  same  house,  made  out 
about  two  months  after  Strasser's  shaving  the  price  charged  Mr.  Boker  for 
the  same  article. 

1  think  these  papers  make  the  case  plain.  Mr.  Boker  can  be  called  a3 
a  witness. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

8.  F.  Butler,  Esq,,  U.  S.  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  18,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  16th  instant,  informing  me  that  you  had 


458  Sep.  No.  669. 

"  formally  selected  the  Bank  of  America  as  a  special  depositor}7,  an 
taken  security  for  the  performance  of  the  fiscal  duties,"  &c,  and  ask 
ing  lor  my  "suggestions  of  the  convenience  which  would  ensue  both  tj 
the  merchants  and  myself  by  the  deposite  and  collection  of  duty  funds  b 
that  bank,"  and  also  stating  that  you  would  have  no  objection  to  my  con 
suiting  with  Mr.  Newbold  on  the  subject. 

In  all  matters  touching  the  convenience  of  transacting  business  in  tin 
office,  I,  of  course,  consult  the  officers  engaged  in  aiding  me  in  the  per 
formance  of  my  duties  ;  and,  in  pursuance  of  my  practice  in  this  respect 
I  laid  your  letter  before  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor,  who  is  charged  witl 
the  custody  of  the  bonds,  and  the  lesponsibility  of  seeing  that  correc 
records  of  them  are  kept  in  this  office,  and  I  now  send  you  his  letter  t< 
me  on  the  subject.  I  concur  in  his  views  of  the  matter,  and  1  state,  in  ad 
dition,  that  I  have  now  made  myself,  as  I  think,  thoroughly  acquaintec 
with  the  details  of  the  business  of  this  office,  according  to  the  forms  here 
to  fore  directed  to  be  pursued,  and  I  have  therefore  no  interest  in  i 
c  hange,  when  it  is  to  give  me  additional  trouble  and  renders  it  necessary 
for  me  to  learn  a  new  system. 

I  would  prefer  not  to  have  any  communications  with  Mr.  Newbold  or 
the  subject,  but  have  each  of  us  to  pursue  the  instructions  we  ma) 
respectively  receive,  according  to  our  respective  understandings  of  the 
same. 

If  \  had  my  own  way  in  the  matter,  I  would  not  deposite  a  dollar  of  tht 
jHibtic  moneys  in  any  bank  which  was  a  deposite  bank  prior  to  May,  1837  : 
and  if  the  new  custom-house  were  done,  I  could  get  on  with  ease  and 
safety  without  the  aid  of  any  bank  or  its  officers,  but,  as  it  is  now,  I  would 
not  consent  to  be  responsible,  without  the  liberty  of  depositing  the  money 
in  bank.  I  would  greatly  prefer  depositing  the  money  daily  in  the  Bank 
of  America,  or  any  where  else  that  you  please,  to  parting  with  the  pos- 
session of  the  bonds,  for  the  reasons  stated  by  Mr.  Fleming. 

I  am,  &e. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury. 


Custom-House,  New  York, 

Auditor's  Office,  May  18,  1839. 
Sir:  In  regard  to  the  collection  of  bonds  by  the  Bank  of  America,  as 
suggested  in  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  dated  the  lUtb 
instant,  referred  by  you  to  me,  I  have  respectfully  to  state,  that  no  advan- 
tage can  result  to  this  office  from  such  arrangement,  or  any  facilities  be 
afforded  to  the  merchant.  On  the  contrary,  it  will  give  additional  labor 
and  increase  the  trouble  already  attendant  upon  this  important  branch  of 
oar  business. 

The  bonds  are  now  delivered  to  the  merchants  immediately  upon  their 
payment  to  the  cashier.  There  could  be  no  difference  in  the  proceeding, 
if  paid  at  the  counter  of  the  bank,  and  consequently  no  facility  afforded 
by  a  change.  The  merchants  are,  for  the  most  part,  in  daily  attendance 
at  the  custom-house,  on  divers  kinds  of  business  ;  and,  by  having  the  oppor- 
tunity of  paying  their  bonds  here,  all  their  custom-house  businesses  trans- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


459 


acted  at  the  same  time  and  in  the  same  place.  If  any  question  arises 
upon  a  bond,  as  is  frequently  the  case,  the  merchant  has  means  of  refer- 
ence for  immediate  investigation.  Hardly  a  day  passes  where  some  per- 
son does  not  have  occasion  to  refer  from  the  cashier  to  the  bond  register, 
to  ascertain  a  particular  in  relation  to  a  bond.  The  same  duties  in  re- 
gard to  preparing  the  account  will  still  have  to  be  performed  at  the  cus- 
tom-house, even  if  the  bonds  are  deposited  in  bank  for  collection  ;  and,  in 
addition  to  these  duties,  accounts  will  have  to  be  made  out  for  the  book 
accompanying  every  deposite  of  bonds — these  given  at  stated  periods,  and 
receipts  required  for  the  same.  At  the  expiration  of  every  period,  the 
accounts  will  be  required  here  for  examination.  Every  bond  that  is  not 
paid  on  the  day  of  maturity  must  be  refunded  to  the  custom-house,  and 
the  collector  will  then  be  required  to  obtain  its  payment,  or  deliver  it  to 
the  District  Attorney  for  prosecution.  I  do  not,  therefore,  perceive  any 
advantage  to  result  to  this  office  from  depositing  the  bonds  in  bank,  but 
an  increase  of  labor  and  difficulty. 

In  the  event  of t such  an  arrangement,  new  accounts  will  be  required 
with  the  custom-house  and  bank,  and  transfers  be  made  weekly,  from  the 
moneys  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  collector,  to  the  account  and  credit  of 
the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  requiring  much  additional  labor  from 
the  cashier  of  the  custom-house.  1  have  had  much  experience  in  the 
mode  of  collecting  bonds,  and  have  found  no  facilities  to  be  afforded  by 
it,  and  can  well  testify  to  the  accumulation  of  labor  and  trouble  occa- 
sioned in  its  performance,  without  its  adding  any  additional  safeguard  to 
the  public  treasure. 

The  bond  accounts  must  be  rendered,  as  usual,  by  us,  quarterly  to  the 
Treasury,  no  matter  where  the  money  is  collected  ;  and  as,  from  the  imper- 
fection of  human  nature,  errors  cannot  be  avoided,  it  is  much  easier  to 
discover  our  own  than  those  of  others. 

In  regard  to  the  deposite  of  the  money  in  the  bank,  it  may  be  advan- 
tageous, and  would  materially  relieve  us,  if  the  bank  should  place  that 
money  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasury,  and  the  Treasurer  make  his  drafts 
upon  the  bank,  and  not  on  the  collector,  as  was  the  case  before  the  sus- 
pension of  specie  payments  and  discontinuance  of  the  use  of  banks  by 
the  Government.  In  that  event,  the  troublesome  account  here  kept  with 
the  Treasurer  might  be  abolished. 

*  1  am,  &c. 

J.  A.  FLEMING,  Auditor. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector ,  8?c. 


Treasury  Department,  May  21,  1S39-. 

Sir:  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  ISth  instant,  with  that  of  Mr. 
Fleming  enclosed.  From  the  explanations  given,  I  am  inclined  to  concur 
in  your  opinion,  that  the  convenience  of  your  establishment  as  well  as  of 
the  merchants  may  be  best  promoted  by  continuing  to  receive  payment 
of  duties  at  the  custom-house — at  least  until  further  evidence  or  experi- 
ence shall  indicate  the  propriety  of  a  change. 

As  to  the  deposite  of  the  balances  of  public  money  in  your  hands  daily 
or  weekly  in  the  selected  banks,  and  putting  drafts  on  that,  which  you 
18* 


460 


Kep.  No.  669. 


seem  to  regard  as  important  under  existing  circumstances  for  your  own. 
security,  the  subject  is  under  consideration,  and  you  wilt  be  advised  of 
the  result  in  a  lew  days  if  practicable.  In  the  mean  time,  1  shall  be  glad 
to  be  favored  with  such  further  views  and  suggestions  on  this  point  as 
may  occur  to  you  as  important  in  coming  to  a  judicious  decision  upon  this 
practice,  and,  in  some  views,  important  question. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  $c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  22,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  asking  my  opinion  as  to  the 
necessity  of  having  an  inspector  appointed  at  Albany. 

I  am  very  anxious,  as  1  have  repeatedly  stated,  to  do  every  thing  prac- 
ticable to  satisfy  the  community  that  there  is  no  lack  of  vigilance  on  the 
part  of  the  officers  of  the  Government,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  in 
their  efforts  to  detect  frauds  upon  the  revenue,  and  by  that  means  to  protect 
the  honest  trader.  To  this  end,  I  am  satisfied  the  appointment  of  an  addi- 
tional inspector  at  Albany  would  be  useful  and  important.  I  therefore 
recommend  Barnum  Whipple  for  the  appointment  of  such  inspector. 

The  Department  can  at  any  time  revoke  the  appointment,  if  it  should 
be  deemed  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  an  inspector  at  that  place. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  27,  1830. 

Sir  :  Herewith  you  will  receive  the  return  of  moneys  received  and 
paid  at  this  office  during  the  last  week,  and  also  a  duplicate  account  of 
Treasury  drafts  paid  during  the  same  period. 

You  will  also  receive  an  account  of  moneys  held  by  me  under  protest 
and  on  deposite,yet  undisposed  of. 

I  have  heretofore  written  you  that  I  was  in  hopes  of  speedily  winding 
up  the  old  deposite  account,  but  it  has  proved  difficult  to  get  the  merchants 
to  call  and  attend  to  it.  I  have  issued  a  circular,  a  copy  of  which  1  send 
you,  in  the  hope  that  1  shall  be  able  before  the  close  of  the  present  quar- 
ter to  have  the  account  entirely  written  up  and  balanced  to  the  credit  of 
the  United  States. 

The  suits  that  have  been  tried  this  term  of  the  circuit  court  have  sub- 
stantially been  decided  against  us,  though  the  parties  have  not  yet  called 
for  the  money  ;  yet  the  protest  fund  is  fast  falling  off  under  the  late  cir- 
culars and  instructions.  Several  suits  have  recently  been  commenced, 
and  the  whole  fund  is  in  a  fair  way  of  vanishing,  but  in  relation  to  which 
1  will  make  you  a  separate  communication  in  a  few  days,  or  at  least  the 
first  leisure  moment  1  get. 


Eep.  No.  669.  461 


I  enclose  you  a  copy  of  a  letter  I  addressed  on  the  25th  instant  to  the 
naval  officer  and  surveyor  of  this  port,  in  relation  to  an  adjustment  of  the 
affairs  of  Lachaise  &  Fauche  at  this  office.  You  will  perceive  the  reasons 
of  my  desire  on  that  subject,  and  also  that  the  surveyor  and  naval  officer 
approved  of  the  course,  as  did  the  district  attorney,  who  will,  if  I  wish, 
write  me  a  letter  to  that  effect.  He  also  consulted,  as  he  tells  me,  the 
district  judge,  who  advised  the  arrangement,  and  accordingly  I  settled  the 
affair,  on  their  paying  the  appraised  value  of  the  goods  under  seizure  into 
court,  and  all  the  costs  of  the  civil  proceedings,  and  $18,354  93  on  the 
penal  bonds  and  claims  for  duties  unpaid  and  unsecured,  making  together 
$45,654  93  for  the  United  States  and  its  officers,  to  be  distributed  accord- 
ing to  law — a  part  of  which  was  this  day  paid,  and  the  remainder  will 
probably  be  paid  over  by  the  clerk  of  the  court  to-morrow. 

I  have  also  received  to-day,  for  the  forfeiture  in  the  case  of  Bottomly's 
woollens,  between  nine  and  ten  thousand  dollars,  which  will  be  distribut- 
ed as  soon  as  the  papers  come  from  court — say  to-morrow. 

I  have  heretofore  written  you  on  the  subject  of  a  difficulty  1  had  with 
the  marshal,  in  regard  to  the  custody  of  goods  after  seizure,  which  was 
before  the  Supreme  Court  last  winter,  and  substantially  decided  that  the 
marshal  had  the  right  to  take  them  into  his  custody,  upon  the  process 
issuing  from  the  court.  That  power  was  abused  soon  after  the  decision, 
and  I  wrote  to  the  Solicitor  that  1  believed  he  had  the  right,  under  his 
supervising  power  over  marshals,  &c,  to  give  him  directions  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  to  require  him  to  leave  the  goods  in  the  public  stores,  where  they 
could  be  taken  care  of.    The  Solicitor  declined  interfering. 

I  had  a  practical  illustration  of  the  danger  I  am  subject  to  in  this  respect 
to-day.  hi  the  case  of  Lachaise  &  Fauche  which  I  have  arranged  as 
above  stated,  the  goods  seized  were  all  fine  French  goods.  The  marshal 
took  them  from  my  custody  on  the  monition  issuing  from  the  court;  and 
when  the  goods  were  to-day  discharged  by  the  order  of  the  court,  the 
parties  called  on  me  and  informed  me  they  found  the  goods  in  a  cellar  in 
Cedar  street,  and  whether  they  were  ruined  or  not  they  could  not  tell 
until  they  had  examined.  This  is  one  abuse  that  calls  loudly  for  a  remedy. 
An  action  had  already  been  commenced  against  me  in  the  sum  of  $50,000 
lor  the  seizure.  Suppose  the  goods  had  been  acquitted  and  a  verdict  found 
against  me  lor  the  amount,  and  i  had  been  compelled  to  look  to  the  goods 
for  indemnity,  and  they  had  become  destroyed.  The  surety  of  the  mar- 
shal to  the  United  States  would  not  have  been  liable  to  me  for  his  negli- 
gence, and  I  might,  if  it  was  official  negligence,  have  not  been  able  to 
have  procured  rediess;  and,  besides,  if  his  surety  was  liable,  the  bond  i3 
not  large  enough  to  cover  such  a  case. 

.Moreover,  the  expenses  were  increased  by  the  removal  of  the  goods 
about  $150 — the  one-half  of  which  is  a  loss  to  the  United  States. 

If  this  evil  cannot  be  redressed  or  reformed  or  in  some  way  modified, 
then  the  Executive  power  of  the  Government  is  not  as  potent  as  I  took  it 
to  be.  That  it  requires  the  correcting  hand  of  some  one,  does  not  admit 
4>f  doubt. 

I  am,  &e. 

J.  HOYT,  Co/lector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  (he  Treasury. 


462 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  28,  1839. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  23d  instant,  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  one 
from  Mr.  Aaron  Rea,  of  this  city,  came  duly  to  hand,  and  was  referred 
by  me  to  the  appraisers,  and  I  now  enclose  a  letter  from  Mr.  Mead  in  re- 
lation to  the  subject. 

There  is  great  truth  in  what  Mr.  Mead  states,  and  we  have  often  ex- 
perienced it  in  the  trial  of  Government  causes  in  this  district. 

I  have  frequently  called  in  merchants  to  assist  the  appraisers,  and  I 
have  paid  them  for  their  services  at  the  customary  rate  of  $5  a  day.  I 
charged  this  sum  (I  refer  now  to  my  accounts  of  the  3d  quarter,  1838) 
in  my  accounts  to  the  United  States,  and  it  was  unceremoniously  struck 
out  by  the  Auditor,  without  inquiring  into  the  circumstances  or  any  thing 
about  it.  I  assumed  that  the  items  would  be  restored  after  my  explana- 
tion was  received,  and  it  has  had  no  influence  and  will  have  none  in  the 
vigilance  due  from  me  to  the  public  service,  for  I  hold  it  to  be  impossi- 
ble that  such  a  policy  could  be  sanctioned  or  adopted  by  the  head  of  the 
Department. 

I  have  done  already  a  good  deal  towards  reforming  the  mode  of  doing 
business  in  the  appraisers'  department,  and  I  have  other  reforms  in  con- 
templation. 

I  do  not  wish  to  be  understood  as  adopting  the  phraseology  of  Mr. 
Mead,  though  in  spirit  his  views  are  correct. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  28,  1839. 

Sir  :  1  enclose  you  a  letter  from  Mr.  George  A.  Wassqn,  in  relation  to 
a  claim  of  his  and  Mr.  Bleecker  to  a  part  of  the  forfeiture,  as  informers 
to  the  32  packages  of  goods,  taken  on  15th  May  from  La  Chaise  and 
Fauche. 

I  ask  for  your  official  opinion.  I  object  to  the  allowance  of  the  claim 
because — 

h  It  is  admitted  that  I  ordered  them,  as  public  offiers,  to  go  to  the  store 
of  La  Chaise  and  Fauche  to  seize  the  goods. 

2.  That  their  action  in  the  matter  was  but  a  continuation  of  their  in- 
structions, and  therefore  there  can  be  no  distinction  between  those  taken 
on  the  14th  and  15th  May  in  the  respect  referred  to. 

3.  Their  relation  to  the  laws  and  their  superior  officer,  from  whom  they 
hold  their  appointments,  forbids  their  acting  in  the  capacity  of  informers. 

The  policy  of  the  law  is  adverse  to  any  construction  that  would  entitle 
them  to  a  share  of  an  informer,  for  the  reason  that  it  would  open  the  door 
to  frauds  upon  the  naval  officer  and  surveyor  by  a  combination  between 
the  collector  and  his  officers,  to  deprive  the  naval  officer  and  surveyor  of 
the  legitimate  shate  awarded  to  them  by  the  act  of  Congress. 

1  would  thank  you  for  your  views  upon  this  subject  at  your  earliest 
convenience,  as  the  fund  cannot  be  distributed  till  this  question  is  settled, 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  U.  S.  Attorney,  #c. 


Be]*.  No.  669.  463 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  31,  1839. 
In, consideration  of  Jesse  Hoyt's  paying  us  our  respective  portions  of 
the  seizures  above  referred  to,  we  respectively  covenant  and  agree  to  re- 
fund the  same  to  said  Jesse  Hoyt,  if  he  is  compelled  to  pay  the  amount. 

H.  CRAIG,  Surveyor. 

WILLIAM  S.  COE,  Naval  Officer. 

Witness  :  J.  A.  Fleming. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  8,  1839. 
Sir  :  On  the  23d  day  of  April  last,  I  reported  to  you  the  seizure  of  6 

cases  of  German  silver,  marked  27C  30,  33  and  36. 

This  cause  was  tried  on  the  6th  instant,  and  the  goods  were  acquitted. 

Very  respectfully, 

JESSE  HOYT,  Collector. 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  12,  1839. 

Si«{ :  In  the  case  of  Samuel  R.  Wood,  about  which  you  wrote  me  last 
season,  I  ordered  a  suit  to  be  commenced  against  him  to  recover*the  dif- 
ference on  duties  between  the  sum  paid  and  that  which  ought  to  have 
been  paid  ;  and  the  jury  brought  in  a  verdict  this  day,  in  favor  of  the 
United  States,  for  $12,278  76. 

This  is  only  one  of  the  many  cases  of  the  same  kind,  which  no  doubt 
has  been  perpetrated  by  the  traders  on  your  side  of  the  water. 

The  newspapers  in  this  country,  and  especially  those  in  the  interest  of 
the  manufacturers,  are  very  clamorous  on  the  subject ;  and  it  is  our  duty, 
as  public  officers,  to  make  use  of  our  best  exertions  to  detect  the  system 
of  frauds  which  have  been  so  extensively  committed  upon  the  revenue 
and  other  great  interests  of  the  country. 

I  send  you  an  article  I  took  from  the  Journal  of  Commerce  of  this  city, 
in  which  paper  it  was  copied  from  the  National  Gazette. 

It  appears  to  me  that  the  consuls  of  the  United  States,  at  Leeds  and 
other  manufacturing  towns,  might  employ  some  one  to  give  us  information 
as  to  those  persons  who  are  in  the  habit  of  invoicing  goods  at  less  than 
cost  for  entry  at  the  various  ports  in  this  country. 

It  could  be  made  a  source  of  profit  to  any  one  who  would  give  the  in- 
formation, as  by  our  laws  he  would  be  entitled  to  a  fourth  part  of  the 
amount  of  the  forfeiture. 

I  wrote  you,  on  a  former  occasion,  that  the  same  frauds  were  practised 
upon  the  British  Government  as  on  ours,  but  not  to  the  same  extent.  I 
have  no  doubt  there  are  many  persons  conversant  of  the  system  in  Liver- 
pool, from  whom  information  could  be  obtained  ;  but  of  this  I,  of  course, 
can  know  nothing  other  than  what  I  have  been  informed. 

The  public  mind  is  somewhat  excited  on  the  subject  at  this  time,  and  I 
am  therefore  the  more  anxious  to  devise  some  method  of  reaching  the 
evil. 


464  Eep.  No.  669. 

The  case  of  Wood  will  be  fully  reported  in  the  newspaper,  and  I  will 
send  you  a  copy  as  soon  as  it  is  published  and  perhaps  by  the  steamer  to- 
morrow. 4 

I  would  thank  you  if  you  would  write  Mr.  Davy,  the  consul  at  Leeds, 
a  note  on  this  subject,  and  see  if  he  can  suggest  any  thing  by  which  I 
can  bring  offenders  to  justice. 

I  am,  6;e. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Francis  B.  Oghex,  Esq., 

Consul  United  States,  Liverpool. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  19,  1 839. 

Gentlemen  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  loth  instant,  but  I 
have  not  had  the  leisure  to  answer  it  till  this  moment. 

1  believe  your  agents  have  gone  through  vsith  the  entry  of  the  indigo 
by  the  Samson.  1  gave  directions  a  few  days  since  to  the  appraisers  upon 
the  subject.  I  have  no  authority  to  refund  the  duty  on  the  importation 
by  the  Gladiator  in  December  last,  and  it  would  be  against  the  rule  of 
the  Department  to  refund  if  application  should  be  made  to  it  ;  but  as  they 
have  decided  in  my  opinion  very  wrong  in  the  indigo  cases  so  far.  there 
is  the  chance  of  their  continuing  wrong,  and  they  might  therefore  refund! 
on  application,  though  I  think  they  would  not. 

We  llhve  a  difficulty  with  the  article  of  kt  mohair  coatings."  The  im- 
porters contend  it  is  all  w  goat's  hair,''  and  therefore  free.  I  have  again 
called  the  attention  of  the  appraisers  to  the  question,  and  we  will  endeavor 
to  get  at  the  right  of  the  matter.  We  have  been  beaten  by  the  couits 
and  jurors  in  all  our  efforts  to  cany  out  what  we  thought  the  true  inter- 
pretation of  the  tariff. 

I  send  you  two  copies  of  the  Courier  and  Enquirer,  which  contain  the 
report  of  the  trial  of  the  case  of  Wood. 

Respectfullv,  See; 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  W.  &  S.  Lawrence  &  Stone. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  26,  1S09. 
Gentlemen  :  In  pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  an  act  of  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  I  hereby  request  \ou  and  each  of  you  to  appear  at  the 
appraisers'  store,  No.  17  Nassau  street,  on  the  27th  instant,  at  10  o'clock^ 
A.  M.,  to  appraise  a  certain  quantity  of  woollen  cloths  imported  into  this 
port  in  the  ship  Shakspeare,  and  consigned  to  Messrs.  Wood,  Johnston,  & 
Burr;  and  in  default  thereof,  the  penalty  of  the  said  act  will  be  enforced 

Respectfullv, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Messrs.  William  H.  Russell,  )  A-      Tr  . 

~  a  >  New  I  ork. 

G or n eli us  Ravage,  ) 

Messrs.  William  H.  Russell,  with  his  brother,  Charles  Russell. 

J.  H. 


Rep.  No.  669.  *  465 

Custom-House,  New  York,  June  29,  1839, 

Sir:  For  reasons  I  mentioned  on  the  23d  instant,  and  which  met  with 
vour  approval,  I  make  no  transfer  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  to-day. 

I  stated  some  time  since  that  we  were  engaged  in  writing  up  the  deposite 
account  for  unascertained  duties  prior  to  the  1st  of  January  last,  and  that 
we  should  have  it  closed  by  the  end  of  the  present  quarter.  It  is  now 
closed,  and  the  money  is  passed  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States  ;  and 
hence  my  returns  of  this  fund,  as  a  separate  fund,  will  cease. 

You  have  expressed  the  hope,  recently,  that  the  moneys  held  by  me  un- 
der protest  w6uld  be  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States.  That 
fund  at  one  time  had  reached  to  the  amount  of  $150,000.  It  is  now  re- 
duced to  about  the  sum  of  $75,000,  (the  exact  amount  appears  in  the  re- 
turns.) Whether  the  amount  be  small  or  large,  it  does  not  alter  the  prin- 
ciple. The  same  motive  that  actuated  me  in  refusing  to  pass  the  first 
$100  I  received  under  protest  to  the  credit  of  the  United  States  has 
equal  force  now  as  then,  and  nothing  has  transpired  to  induce  me  to  yield 
to  your  repeated  suggestions  on  this  subject ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  many 
circumstances  have  fallen  under  my  observation  to  weaken  my  faith  in  the 
justice  of  Government,  and  to  admonish  me  of  the  impolicy  of  placing 
myself  in  a  situation  to  be  compelled  to  resort  to  that  justice  for  protec- 
tion. To  give  a  partial  illustration  of  the  reasons  that  have  forced  me  to 
this  conclusion,  I  attach  a  copy  of  a  letter  1  felt  it  my  duty  to  address  the 
First  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury,  on  the  9th  day  of  May  last,  in  rela- 
tion to  some  objections  that  had  been  raised  to  my  accounts.  In  this  state 
of  things  I  can  discover,  as  any  prudent  man  would  discover,  abundant 
reasons  for  avoiding  all  contingencies  that  would  place  me  in  the  condi- 
tion of  a  supplicant  to  the  justice  of  the  Government. 

In  addition  to  the  natural  inference  to  be  drawn  from  the  issue  made  by 
the  letter  last  referred  to,  I  have  further  experience  of  a  similar  charac- 
ter. As  long  since  as  December  last,  a  judgment  was  recovered  against 
me  by  D.  Hadden  &  Co.,  for  money  paid  into  the  Treasury,  (wrongfully 
recovered  I  admit,)  but  which  I  was  compelled  to  pay,  and  I  charged  it  to 
the  United  States,  and  reported  it  to  the  Department  ;  but  I  have  not  yet 
been  informed  whether  that  amount  has  been  passed  to  my  account  or 
not. 

There  are  now  many  suits  pending  against  me,  and  many  others  threat- 
ened j  and  if  I  should  pay  the  money  held  under  protest  into  the  Trea- 
sury, and  judgments  were  recovered  against  me,  and  if  1  should  pay  these 
judgments  and  charge  it  to  the  United  States,  what  security  have  I  that 
such  charges  would  be  allowed,  with  the  evidence  I  have  already  before 
me  of  the  cruel,  and  as  1  contend  unlawful,  objections  taken  to  some  items 
in  my  accounts  already  furnished  ? 

This  question  of  protest  was  before  Congress  at  the  last  session,  and 
the  injustice  was  perpetrated  of  passing  a  law  to  compel  collectors  to  pay 
over  money  received  under  protest,  without  instructing  the  Department 
to  hold  such  collectors  harmless  for  the  act  against  which  the  parties  pro- 
test. If  the  immediate  representatives  of  the  people  could  sanction  such 
legislation  to  gratify  personal  spleen  or  to  administer  to  the  biddings  of 
party,  or  if  it  is  deemed  the  result  of  deliberate  judgment,  there  may  be  a 
time  when  Executive  officers  may  be  actuated  by  similar  motives,  or  adopt 
this  system  as  one  that  is  correct.  If  unhappily  such  a  time  should  arrive, 
1  do  not  choose  to  be  made  a  victim.    I  deny  the  moral  right  of  the  De- 


466 


Rep.  No.  6G9. 


partment  (o  set  me  up  as  a  target  between  the  importers  and  the  Govern- 
ment, to  be  shot  at,  without  providing  me  with  the  proper  balm  to  heal 
the  wounds  that  may  be  inflicted. 

It  is  a  very  perplexing  business,  and  much  more  so  to  me  than  to  you. 
For  instance,  about  $25,000  of  the  $75,000  under  protest,  is  for  bonds 
paid.  These  bonds  stand  charged  to  me  in  the  accounts  of  revenue,  for 
which  1  am  responsible  on  the  face  of  the  accounts,  the  protests  not  hav- 
ing been  made  at  the  time  of  entry  ;  and,  of  course,  the  amount  of  the  entry 
has  gone  to  my  debit.  I  am  then  held  doubly,  once  to  the  Government 
and  once  to  the  merchant,  to  meet  one  liability.    I  hold  the  money. 

I  shall,  at  the  first  leisure  moment,  go  through  the  papers  in  the  protest 
account,  and  see  exactly  its  situation  ;  and  1  will  then  determine  what 
course  ought  to  be  taken  with  reference  to  what  is  alike  due  to  my  own 
safety  and  my  obligations  as  a  public  officer. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

P.  S.  This  letter  bears  date  the  day  it  was  written.  It  was  not  sent 
till  3d  July. 

J.  HOYT. 


Treasury  Department,  July  5,  1839. 

Sir:  Yours  of  the  29th  ultimo,  informing  me  that  you  had  not  yet  de- 
posited to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  nor  set  apart  for  his  drafts,  the 
balance  of  money  held  under  protest  previous  to  the  4th  of  March  last, 
has  been  received  with  regret. 

As  you  express  a  determination,  however,  to  make  another  communica- 
tion to  me  on  this  subject  at  the  first  leisure  moment,  I  shall  defer,  for  a 
few  days,  taking  any  final  steps  in  respect  to  the  matter,  except  to  keep 
the  President  advised  of  the  unexpected  condition  in  which  it  remains. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  July  5,  1839. 
Sir  :  With  reference  to  the  seizure  of  cloth  consigned  to  Messrs. 
Wood,  Johnston,  &  Burritt,  I  have  to  state  that  one  bale  out  of  the  in- 
voice (say  No.  100)  had  been  sold  before  the  whole  invoice  was  ordered 
to  the  appraisers'  store,  under  the  penal  bond.  The  enclosed,  from  Gid- 
eon Wells,  Esq.,  of  Hartford,  will  inform  you  what  that  bale  sold  for  per 
yard,  viz:  $2  40,  which  is  one-half  of  a  statute  pound  sterling — say  10 
shillings.  They  were  invoiced,  as  you  will  see  by  examining  it,  at  three- 
fourths.  If  you  add  41  per  cent,  duty,  it  makes  them  cost  here  four-ninths ; 
so  that  100  per  cent,  profit  was  obtained.  The  usual  profit,  under  the  like 
circumstances,  is  from  li  to  12  per  cent. 


Eep.  No.  669.  467 

All  this  is  proof  to  my  mind  that  the  appraisers'  valuation  was  much  too  ' 
low. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York, 

Collectors'  Office,  July  5,  1839. 
Gentlemen  :  I  learn  from  the  captain  of  one  of  the  packets,  recently 
arrived  from  Europe,  that  he  has  a  large  and  very  valuable  cargo  oi  dry 
goods,  and  principally,  as  he  believes,  on  manufacturers'  account. 

It  is  no  doubt  the  practice  of  many  of  these  individuals  to  make  out  in- 
voices of  goods  sent  to  this  country  for  sale  on  their  own  account,  at 
prices  embracing  only  the  cost  of  the  raw  material  and  the  labor  actually 
bestowed  in  manufacturing  the  article,  as  the  value  at  which  the  goods 
are  to  be  entered  at  the  custom-house,  having  no  reference  to  the  interest 
of  the  capital  embarked  in  the  business,  and  the  personal  labor  and  time 
in  the  superintendence  by  the  owners  of  that  capital. 

This  is  not  the  legal  or  just  rule  by  which  we  are  to  test  the  invoices 
made  upon  such  a  basis,  but  we  are  to  inquire  as  to  the  fair  market  value 
at  the  place  of  exportation.  Any  other  principle  is  alike  subversive  of 
the  interest  of  our  own  Government,  manufacturers,  and  merchants.  I 
therefore  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  subject. 

I  am  induced  to  believe  that  the  recent  facilities  of  intercourse  with 
Europe,  by  means  of  steam  vessels,  is  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a  new  sys- 
tem of  doing  business,  that  will  materially  prejudice  the  great  interest  al- 
luded to,  if  the  utmost  scrutiny  is  not  exercised  in  your  department;  and 
therefore  it  is  that  I  feel  it  my  duty,  under  the  general  directions  of  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  solicit  at  your  hands  all  the  energy  in  the 
discharge  of  your  duties  that  the  framers  of  the  law  under  which  you  are 
organized  could  have  anticipated. 

The  remarks  will  apply  as  well  to  English  as  French  packets. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
To  the  Principal  and  Assistant  Appraisers 

of  the  port  oj  New  York. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  July  13,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  the  case  of  T.  Schivann  &  Co.'s  cloth  under  seizure,  I  wish  you 
to  call  one  of  the  firm  of  H.  W.  &  T.  Mali,  or  all  of  them,  to  prove  that 
the  manufacturers  are  in  the  habit  of  invoicing  their  Swiss  or  German 
cloths  at  what  it  costs  to  make  them.  I  wish  you  also  to  write  to  W.  & 
S.  Lawrence  &  Stone,  of  Boston,  for  the  name  of  some  of  their  merchants 
who  have  been  there  to  purchase  them,  and  could  not  purchase  for  the 
reason  that  the  manufacturers  sent  them  all  here  to  enter  at  their  mode  of 
invoicing  them.  The  Messrs.  Lawrence  will  procure  such  persons  to 
come  here  and  testify. 


468 


Eep.  No.  669. 


I  write  you  these  matters  now,  under  the  impression  that  you  file  th 
letters  away  with  the  papers  in  the  case,  and  that,  when  you  are  abot 
to  prepare  tor  the  trial  of  the  case,  you  will  be  reminded  of  it,  and  thai 
if  I  did  not  do  this,  I  might  forget  it ;  and  if  1  make  a  memorandum  of  th 
facts,  it  may  never  reach  you  in  the  case  of  my  death  or  resignation,  nei 
ther  of  which  I  have  any  ambition  to  see  carried  out. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  July  20,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  this  day  transferred  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer 
for  the  receipts  of  this  week,  the  sum  of  $225,000,  in  which  was  include 
$24,031  77  paid  over  by  me  from  a  part  of  the  fund  held  under  protest 
The  bonds  collected  this  week  have  been  rather  light,  the  cash  dutie 
have  been  respectable.  We  are  kept  very  busy.  More  than  200  packa 
ges  have  been  received  at  the  appraisers'  store  for  examination  to-day,  be 
fore  12  o'clock. 

Several  of  our  people  have  been  subpoenaed  to  Boston  on  a  seizur 
case  of  woollens,  which  will  leave  us  very  short-handed  for  the  nex 
week  ;  and  I  shall  not  probably  have  the  leisure  to  write  any  other  tha 
formal  letters. 

No  steamer  as  yet;  but  before  Monday  we  undoubtedly  shall  have  on 
with  very  late  intelligence  from  Europe. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury, 

July  29,  1S39. 

Sib  :  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  25th  instant,  relative  to  the 
case  of  Joseph  Dupre,  in  which  you  state  that  you  reported  it  on  the  29th 
June  as  a  forfeiture  under  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799. 
No  such  report  appears  to  have  been  received.  By  reference  to  the  re- 
cords of  this  office,  I  find  that,  on  the  1st  instant,  the  district  attorney 
reported  that  he  had  instituted  against  Joseph  Dupre  "an  action  of  debt" 
to  recover  "short  duties;"  and,  on  the  2d  instant,  you  reported  that  you 
had  directed  the  district  attorney  to  bring  suit  against  Joseph  Dupre, 
under  the  act  of  2d  March,  1799,  the  goods  imported  by  him  having 
been  entered  below  their  value.  On  the  18th  instant,  the  district  attor- 
ney wrote  to  this  office,  recommending,  with  your  concurrence,  for  the 
reasons  stated  by  him,  a  discontinuance  of  the  suit  on  such  terms  as  might 
be  thought  just.  Of  this  letter,  I  enclose  you  \  copy,  la  reply,  I  told  the 
district  attorney  that,  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  1  could  not 
authorize  a  discontinuance  unless  all  the  duties  were  paid  that  would  have 


Eep.  No.  669. 


469 


iccrued  had  the  goods  been  regularly  entered  under  the  second  invoice, 
ind  also  all  costs,  but  if  these  payments  were  made,  he  might  discontinue 
egal  proceedings.  On  the  26th  instant,  he  reported  to  this  office  that  Mr. 
Dupre  had  paid  the  full  amount  of  duties  that  were  short,  being  $56  28, 
md  that  therefore  the  suit  against  him  was  discontinued,  and  the  amount 
paid  over  to  collector. 

In  reply  to  your  inquiry,  as  to  the  distribution  of  the  money  thus  re- 
covered, 1  have  to  say  that  the  payment  of  money  recovered  on  suit,  in  re- 
venue cases,  whether  as  duties  or  as  fines,  penalties,  or  forfeitures,  being 
made  in  all  cases  to  the  collector,  the  distribution  or  payment  into  the 
Treasury  by  him  is  not  a  question  within  the  regulations  of  this  office, 
but  must  be  decided  by  the  accounting  officers  in  the  adjustment  of  the 
collector's  accounts.  As  the  point  may  be  of  some  consequence,  I  would 
recommend  your  submitting  it  to  the  Comptroller. 

Very  respectfully, 

H.  D.  GILPIN, 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 

,    Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  July  30,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  the  bills  of  costs  this  day  rendered  to  you,  in  the  cases  of  Jesse 
Hoyt  ads.  Hughes  and  Guynot,  and  the  same  ads.  S.  V.  Dorr  and  others, 
I  have  charged  a  counsel  fee  of  $25  in  each  cause  ;  and,  in  reference  to  a 
letter  you  have  recently  received  from  the  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury, 
on  the  subject  of  charges  of  this  nature,  and  to  the  extiacts  of  an  opinion 
of  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  communicated  with  that 
letter,  I  take  the  liberty  to  say  that,  had  the  whole  opinion  been  furnish- 
ed to  you,  it  would  have  been  found  that  the  extract  referred  to  is  only 
applicable  to  those  attorneys  who  receive  salaries,  (which  is  not  the  case 
with  the  attorney  of  this  district,)  and  to  causes  in  which  the  attorney 
brings  and  prosecutes  a  suit  for  the  benefit  of  the  United  States.  In  the 
cases  above  named,  the  suit  was  against  the  collector  in  his  personal  ca- 
pacity ;  and  it  was  no  part  of  the  district  attorney's  regular  official  duty  to 
defend  the  suits,  although  the  fact  that  the  construction  of  the  tariff  laws 
was  involved  in  them  made  it  very  proper  that  he  should  do  so.  The 

\  charges  foi  counsel  fees,  in  these  cases, stand  therefor  e  on  the  same  grounds 
as  if  the  person  who  defended  you  had  been  merely  a  private  attorney  and 
counsel.  But  the  extract  from  the  opinion  of  Judge  Hopkinson,  also  en- 
closed to  you,  and  to  the  correctness  of  which  I  entirely  accede,  does  un- 
doubtedly apply  ;  and  if  you  have  not  already  had,  or  shall  not  hereafter 

:  obtain,  the  approbation  of  the  accounting  officers  and  of  the  Department 
to  the  employment  of  counsel  to  defend  you  in  the  suits,  you  will  be 

:  obliged  to  resort  to  Congress  for  your  indemnification,  unless,  indeed,  you 

;  have  some  other  means  of  indemnification. 

I  do  not  know  wThether  you  have  obtained  the  approbation  referred  to; 
and  if  you  have  not,  then,  strictly  speaking,  these  bills  of  costs  should  not 
be  charged  to  you  as  collector,  but  as  an  individual.  I  presume,  how- 
ever, if  the  Department  has  not  already  sanctioned  the  defence  in  these 

) 


470 


Rep.  No.  669. 


causes,  it  will  do  so  on  a  suitable  representation  being  made  nunc  p 
tunc ;  and  as  the  bills  have  been  made  out  on  the  assumption  that  tl 
would  be  or  had  been  done,  1  do  not  think  it  necessary  to  alter  them. 

Yours,  &c. 

B.  F.  BUTLER, 

United  States  Attorney. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  August  23,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  transferred  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer  $155, 
as  the  receipts  of  the  week  ending  this  day. 

I  stated,  a  few  days  since,  that  I  had  no  doubt  the  present  state  of  th 
money  market  would  put  upon  us  a  great  many  Treasury  notes;  and  m 
prediction  will  no  doubt  be  verified.    We  have  taken  to  day  $26,0S2  5 

You  will  see,  by  the  specie  returns  made  to-day,  that  the  newspape 
have  got  down  a  larger  amount  as  having  been  exported  this  week  ths 
has  been  manifested. 

We  have  to  France,  by  the  Baltimore  ...  $205,98 
We  have  to  England,  by  the  Great  Western         -  -  428,2 

We  have  to  England,  by  the  British  Queen  -  -  145,0 


Making     .......  779,301 

I  have  not  time  by  this  mail  to  enlarge. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

P.  S.  You  will  see,  by  the  Post  of  this  evening,  that  my  brother  Ban- 
croft has  succeeded  in  his  seizure  case.    My  people  all  return  to-day. 

J.  HOYT. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  6,  1839. 
Sir  :  1  enclose  you  an  open  letter  for  the  Solicitor,  covering  a  return 
of  goods  seized,  by  which  you  will  see  what  we  are  doing  in  the  woollen 
way. 

1  shall  hereafter  give  you  a  more  detailed  report.  Be  pleased  to  seal 
the  letter  and  send  it  to  the  Solicitor's  office. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  6,  1839. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  29th  instant,  in  relation  to  the  case  of  Dupre, 
came  duly  to  hand  ;  but  I  have  not,  until  this  moment,  had  the  opportune- 


1  Rep.  No.  669.  471 

y  to  make  the  investigation,  so  as  to  place  the  matter  before  you  as  it 
ppears  from  the  files  of  this  office.    And  while  I  take  upon  myself  the 
rouble  to  do  this,  I  must  admit  the  magnitude  of  the  particular  case 
vould  not  justify  me  in  consuming  my  own  and  taking  up  your  time  ;  but 
ny  experience  with  the  Department  admonishes  me  of  the  importance  of 
ettling  principles  as  soon  and  as  fast  as  any  case  arises,  about  which  there 
•ould  be  any  doubt  as  to  the  manner  in  which  it  should  be  disposed  of. 
n  my  letter  to  you  of  the  25th  July,  I  mistook  the  date  of  my  report  of 
he  case  to  the  district  attorney  for  my  report  to  you.    I  reported  the  case 
o  you  on  the  2d  July,  and  to  the  district  attorney  the  27th  June,  a  copy 
>f  the  latter  report  I  now  send  you.    The  form  which  you  have  pre- 
scribed for  my  reports  of  the  cases  sent  to  the  district  attorney  for  penal- 
ies  and  forfeitures  is  so  exceedingly  awkward,  that  1  am  compelled  to 
itate,  very  briefly,  the  ground  of  the  supposed  forfeiture,  or  the  incurring 
)f  the  penalty,  or  else  I  should  be  compelled  to  extend  the  report  some- 
what in  the  form  of  the  information  or  declaration  which  the  district  at- 
om ey  files  as  the  foundation  of  his  proceedings,    11  I  am  to  be  bound,  so 
;*ar  as  concerns  my  legal  rights,  by  the  hurried  reports  1  make  to  you  of 
■tuts  directed  to  be  brought,  with  the  view  of  giving  you  a  general  rather 
<han  a  particular  view  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  Government,  in 
.he  litigation  in  this  district  originating  with  me,  I  must  claim  the  privi- 
lege of  dispensing  with  your  form,  and  adopting  one  for  myself  that  will 
Convey  my  own  ideas  of  the  matter.    Before  1  report  a  case  of  this  kind 
lo  the  district  attorney  or  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  I  record  it  on  my 
r  book  of  seizures."    I  then  report  it' to  the  district  attorney,  with  my 
i^enefal  views  of  the  law  of  the  case,  and  my  clerk  makes  up  the  report, 
;  it  his  first  leisure,  for  the  Solicitor.    The  rights  of  the  seizing  officer  are 
lot  to  be  prejudiced  by  the  form  of  the  report  to  the  attorney  or  the  Solici- 
tor, or  by  the  form  of  the  declaration  or  information  the  district  attoney 
Tor  his  own  convenience  or  for  want  of  proper  investigation,  •  may  adopt. 
It  is  the  substance  of  the  thing,  and  not  the  form  of  the  proceeding  to  reach 
that  substance,  that  is  to  control  the  rights  of  the  Government  or  its  offi- 
cers.   And  although  I  may  have  said  to  the  district  attorney  that  the  prin- 
ciple of  the  66th  section  of  the  act  of  1799  might  be  of  doubtful  policy., 
inasmuch  as  it  might  tend  to  encourage  the  seizing  officer  of  the  Govern- 
ment to  relax  in  a  proper  vigilance  in  the  incipient  stages  of  passing  goods 
through  the  custom-house,  and  that  I  should  be  unwilling  to  put  in  the 
claim  of  a  seizing  officer  in  case  the  successful  prosecution  of  which  might 
imply  a  prior  negligence  in  official  duties,  still  this  does  not  deprive  me 
of  the  right  of  asking  for  an  interpretation  of  the  law  from  my  superiors  in 
office  ;  and  when  \  ask  for  that  interpretation  from  one  of  the  law  officers 
of  the  Government,  who  is  especially  charged  with  the  direction  of  all 
suits  in  which  the  United  States  have  an  interest,  1  do  not  think  I  am  to 
be  turned  over  to  an  "  accountant "  for  an  exposition  of  the  law.  The 
Solicitor  claims  the  right  of  directing  me  what  form  of  a  report  I  shall 
give  to  the  district  attorney  and  the  marshal  for  moneys  received  of  them, 
and  how  many  of  each  kind  of  receipts  I  shall  execute;  by  which  I  infer 
that  his  power  over  the  suit,  and  the  proceeds  of  the  suit,  do  not  termi- 
nate till  such  proceeds  are  actually  paid  into  the  Treasury.   And  here  I 
have  a  right,  as  I  suppose,  to  be  infoimed  by  ryrn  how  much  of  these 
proceeds  should  be  put  into  the  Treasury.    I  have  a  great  repugnance  to 
having  the  accuracy  of  my  accounts  questioned  by  the  accounting  officer ; 


472 


Rep.  No.  650. 


and,  believing  that  the  question  submitted  is  very  proper  to  submit  toyo- 
I  omitted  to  make  any  entry  in  my  books  till  I  had  received  your  replHrf 
but  I  shall  now  make  that  entry  without  considering  myself  bound  by 
in  any  future  cases  that  may  arise.    I.  beg,  however,  to  add,  that  J  find  r 
fault  with  the  manner  in  which  you  and  the  district  attorney  adjusted  tr 
case.    My  great  object,  in  reporting  the  case,  was  for  the  reformation  <  1. 
the  delinquent,  which  I  flatter  myself  is  thoroughly  accomplished. 

Respectfully,  jpid 
J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 




Extract  of  a  letter  from  Jesse  Hoyt,  collector,  to  Henry  D.  Gilpin,  Esq 
Solicitor,  dated  Custom- House,  New  York,  August  8,  1S39. 

i  shall  endeavor,  hereafter,  not  to  do  such  an  unprofitable  business  (6\ 
the  United  States,  for  we  have  not  even  the  duties  ;  but,  in  similar  case 
hereafter,  1  will  consent  to  take  duties  on  appraised  value,  rather  thai 
exhaust  the  whole  fund  in  litigation. 


Extracts  from  a  letter  from  the  office  of  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  U 
Jesse  Hoyt,  collector,  dated  August  9, 1839. 

Cases  occur,  certainly  not  unfrequeruly,  in  which  additional  dutie's  car 
be  recovered,  owing  to  mistake,  want  of  information,  or  fraud,  at  the  time 
the  duties  were  first  calculated,  although  there  may  not  be  ground,  or  the 
revenue  officers  may  not  think  it  proper,  to  prosecute  for  a  penalty. 

It  will  hardly  be  contended,  in  such  cases,  that  the  revenue  officers  are 
entitled  to  any  share  of  such  recovery.  The  only  means,  then,  which  this 
office  has  of  knowing  whether  the  suit  is  for  a  penalty  or  to  recover  un- 
paid duties  is  the  report  oi  the  collector  and  district  attorney. 

########* 

1  will,  if  you  will  send  me  on  the  form  you  desire,  examine  it,  and 
adopt  it  if  it  can  be  done  without  great  inconvenience.  As,  however, 
yours  will  be  the  only  collection  district  in  which  the  difference  of  form 
will  exist,  I  shall  be  obliged  by  your  making  your  new  form  coincide  as 
nearly  as  you  can  with  the  existing  one. 

*  Very  respectfully, 

H.  D.  GILPIN,  Solicitor. 


Postscript  of  letter  from  Jesse  Hoyt,  collector,  to  B.  F.  Butler,  district 
attorney,  dated  August  9,  1839. 

It  is  proper  to  remark  that  the  person  entering  is  bound  by  the  entry 
and  not  the  invoice,  though  the  invoice  ought  to  be  a  copy  of  the  entry. 

You  will  notice  that  the  merchants  always  appraise  higher  than  the 
public  appraisers;  and  therefore,  when  you  show  the  entry  and  call  the 
merchants  who  have  appraised,  the  onus  is  then  on  the  other  side.  I 
would  avoid  calling  our  own  appraisers  when  you  can  avoid  it. 


Bep.  No.  669.  473 

Custom-House,  New  York,  Avgust  14,  1839. 

f  Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  letter  from  Nariot  &  Bodois,  dated  this  day,  in 
•elation  to  my  having  re/used  entry  lor  an  invoice  of  goods  without 
nvner's  oath  or  consul's  certificate. 

I  discovered  to-day,  for  the  first  time,  that  a  very  pernicious  practice  had 
;rept  into  the  office  jn  the  hurry  of  business,  and  from  what  1  deem  frau- 
Inlent  attempts  on  the  part  of  importers.  Foreign  manufacturers  estab- 
ish  what  they  call  a  house  here,  put  up  a  sign,  and  go  back  to  Europe, 
eaving  a  power  of  attorney  here  with  some  one  to  do  their  business,  and 
send  out  goods  to  that  agent  without  any  verification  of  invoices,  and  the 
lgent  enters  them,  and  swears  to  the  ownership  as  being  in  this  foreign 
louse. 

In  the  present  instance,  the  letter  states  both  of  the  firm  are  in  Europe, 
and  when  either  of  them  will  be  back  the  writer  of  the  letter  is  unable 
:o  say.  In  my  judgment,  this  is  not  such  a  case  as  entitles  the  agent  to 
?nter  goods  without  the  owner's  oath  taken  before  a  consul  abroad.  I 
iiave  an  English  case  to-day,  more  bold  than  the  French  one,  to  show  the 
bractice  resorted  to.  Wilson,  Hawks  worth,  &  Moss,  of  Sheffield,  appoint 
'Joseph  Ellison,  of  this  city,  their  agent.  Mr.  Ellison  goes  out  to  England, 
and  appoints  S.  F.  Stevens  his  attorney.  Mr.  Stevens  enters  goods  as 
agent,  and  swears  they  belong  to  Mr.  Ellison.  Mr.  Moss,  one  of  the 
principals,  is  now  here  ;  and  he  admitted  to  me,  this  morning,  that  Mr. 
Ellison  is  a  mere  agent,  though  the  bill  of  parcels,  which  they  call  an  in- 
voice's thus  made  out: 

u  Mr.  Joseph  Ellison,  bought  of  Wilson,  Hawksworth,  &  Moss." 

It  was  the  detection  of  this  latter  case  that  led  to  the  decision  in  the 
'former,  and  it  is  a  striking  evidence  of  what  men  will  resort  to  in  the 
hope  of  serving  some  petty  interest. 

I  have  not  determined  what  I  shall  do  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Moss,  of 
whom  it  is  true  to  say  that  he  has  been  guilty  of  subornation  of  perjury, 
'as  the  oath  of  Mr.  Stevens  was  filled  up  in  his  presence  with  the  design 
'that  it  should  be  as  it  was  sworn  to. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woojbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Extract  from  a  letter  to  B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  United  States  attorney, 
dated  Custom-House,  New  York^  August  16,  1889. 

If  it  be  consistent  with  the  views  of  the  various  United  States  officers 
through  whose  hands  the  legal  proceedings  in  this  case  must  go,  it  would 
not  be  offensive  to  the  feelings  of  the  United  States  officers  who  render 
the  incipient  responsibility  in  this  matter  to  have  these  19  cases  of  cloths 
put  in  one  information. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 


474 


Hep.  No.  669. 


Treasury  Department, 
First  Comptroller'' s  Office,  August  17,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  compliance  with  your  reference  of  the  enclosed  letter,  unde 
date  of  the  14th  instant,  from  Collector  Hoyt,  respecting  the  taking  o 
false  oaths  with  a  view  to  the  introduction  of  goods  not  accoippanied  wit! 
invoices  verified  in  the  manner  required  by  law,  1  have  to  report  that,  ir 
every  case  where  an  importer  takes  the  oath  of  ownership  for  the  purpose 
of  evading  the  requirements  of  the  supplementary  collection  law  of  lsi 
March,  1823,  when  he  is  not  in  fact  the  'owner,  and  the  collector  can 
procure  or  has  in  his  possession  evidence  to  establish  the  fact,  the  person 
should,  I  think,  be  prosecuted  under  the*  act  of  1825,  section  13,  for  the 
suppression  of  perjury  or  subornation  of  perjury,  as  the  case  may  be;  and, 
I  may  add,  that  no  other  restraining  correction  occurs  to  me. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c. 

J.  A.  BARKER,  Comptroller. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New* York,  August  20,  1839. 

Sir  :  1  enclose  you  a  letter  from  Captain  Polk,  of  the  cutter  Rush,  on 
the  subject  of  shipping  men  for  (he  cutter  service. 

The  suggestions  he  makes  are  entitled  to  weight.  I  take  no  sort  of  in- 
terest in  the  cutter,  for  reasons  I  have  before  stated,  and  especially  since 
I  took  an  excursion  to  the  highlands,  with  Mr.  Pleasonton,  in  the  cutter 
Hamilton,  from  Boston,  under  the  command  of  Captain  Sturges.  If  there 
were  a  cutter  on  this  station  officered  as  that  is,  I  should  have  more  re- 
spect for  and  confidence  in  the  cutter  service;  but  I  have  never  been  able 
to  understand  why  all  the  worn-out  veterans  in  the  service  were  sent  to 
this  port  to  annoy  the  collector  rather  than  to  aid  him. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

lion.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  August  22,  1S39. 
Dear  sir:  I  have  your  private  letter  of  yesterday.  I  have  referred  it 
to  Mr.  Butler,  the  district  attorney,  and  do  not  act  till  you  hear  from  us; 
we  have  our  hand  full  now  of  those  affairs,  and  we  must  not  attempt  to 
do  more  than  we  can  carry  through.  I  have  had  another  Yorkshire  man 
under  the  8th  section  to-day. 

In  haste,  yours, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

G.  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Boston. 

You  will  have  seen  by  the  papers  what  we  have  done  at  Philadelphia. 
I  have  not  time  to  go  into  particulars. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


475 


Custom- House,  New  York,  August  29,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  was  sei  ved  this  evening  with  notice  of  an  application  to  be  made 
,  to  the  district  court  for  a  remission  of  a  forfeiture  under  the  1st  section  of 
the  act  of  3d  March,  1797. 

The  provisions  of  the  act  requiring  notice  to  be  given  to  the  collector 
j  must  have  some  meaning  in  it,  and  no  doubt  a  responsibility  in  this  re- 
spect is  thrown  upon  him  ;  but,  as  I  am  opposed  to  all  forms  in  which  there 
is  an  absence  of  substance,  I  beg  permission  to  inquire  what  the  rules  of 
the  Department  is  in  cases  of  this  kind.  I  am  induced  to  do  so  from  the 
fact  stated  to  me  to-day  by  the  district  attorney,  as  having  occurred  in  the 
case  of  Strasser,  the  claimant  in  the  seizure  of  thiee  cases  of  pistols  and 
guns. 

Application  was  made  in  this  case,  aftei  a  verdict  for  the  United  States, 
for  a  remission  of  the  forfeiture.  I  understand  the  judge,  before  whom 
the  case  was  tried,  reported  against  the  remission,  and  that  you  have  sent 
the  papers  to  the  district  attorney  for  his  opinion. 

In  the  case,  after  the  trial  of  the  cause,  and  upon  the  papers  served  upon 
i   me,  f  occupied  time  that  I  might  have  devoted  to  purposes  of  some  mo- 
i  ment  in  stating  my  objections  to  the  remission,  which  were  sent  to  the 
district  attorney,  and  by  him  perused,  and,  on  his  motion,  attached  to  the 
record,  to  be  laid  before  you,  as  the  judicial  tribunal  of  final  resort  in  the 
j  premises. 

The  act  requires  the  papers  to  be  served  on  the  district  attorney  as  the 
prosecuting  officer  of  the  Government,  and  not  as  the  judge  ;  and  there- 
\  fore  f  submit,  upon  principle,  without  any  knowledge  of  his  views  upon 
i  the  merits  of  the  question,  whether  any  reference  to  his  opinion  ought  to 
'  be  had,  because  the  law  does  not  call  for  it,  and  because  I  have  not  the 
j  opportunity  of  combating  any  opinion  be  may  give  upon  the  subject. 

1  assume  that  you  would  not  ask  for  that  opinion  unless  you  intended 
to  accord  some  weight  and  importance  to  it  ;  and  hence  it  is  exposing  the 
otScers  of  the  Government,  upon  whom  the  responsibility  originally  rest- 
ed, to  hazards  of  which  they  can  know  nothing,  as  it  is  entirely  outside 
of  the  act  under  which  the  proceedings  are  instituted. 

if  the  verdict  of  a  jury  upon  questions  of  fact,  and  the  opinion  of  the 
court  upon  questions  of  law,  together  with  a  judgment,  upon  a  rehearing 
of  the  law  and  the  facts  from  the  same  court,  sustaining  such  verdict,  is 
not  enough  to  protect  the  rights  of  subordinates  in  the  opinion  of  their 
superiors,  in  cases  of  this  kind,  it  is  due  to  such  subordinates  that  it  be 
made  known  without  delay. 

1  ask  for  the  rule  of  the  Department  in  these  matters,  before  I  take  any 
further  trouble  on  similar  applications. 

1  am,  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT.  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  « 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Custom -House,  New  York,  August  30,  1 339. 
Sir:  Is  there  enough  in  the  enclosed  examination  of  Francis  Black- 
burn to  justify  us  in  holding  on  to  goods  that  are  not  raised  by  the  ap- 
praisers ?    He  has  taken  the  owner's  oath,  but  we  do  not  believe  he  owns 
them. 

19* 


i 


476  Rep.  No.  669. 

Let  me  hear  from  you  as  soon  as  practicable  on  the  subject.  We  sup. 
pose  him  to  be  the  agent  of  John  Taylor,  jr. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler, 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custgm-House,  New  York,  August  30,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  seized  the  following  goods,  imported  by  J.  Ellison,  viz : 

 92  and  93,  two  casks  files,  per  barque  Euretta,  from  Hull;  116 1 

lo  121,  six  casks  files,  &c,  per  ship  Virginia,  from  Liverpool.  1  send  you 
the  following  papers,  viz  : 

1.  The  two  entries  sworn  to  before  deputy  Ferguson,  by  Samuel  F. 
Stevens,  attorney  for  Ellison. 

2.  The  two  invoices,  -amounting  to  £500  13s.  lid. 

3.  The  two  appraisements,  amounting  to  £564  4s.  5d. 

I  seize  the  goods,  not  so  much  for  under  valuation,  as  for  the  following 
causes : 

1.  Mr.  Ellison,  by  the  papers,  appears  to  be  the  owner  of  the  property, 
and  to  have  bought  it  of  Messrs.  Wilson,  Hawksworth,  &  Moss.  . 

2.  Mr.  Moss,  who  was  hene  a  few  days  since  and  left  in  the  steamer 
Liverpool  on  the  24th  instant,  admitted  to  me  that  Mr.  Ellison  was  the 
agent  of  the  house  merely,  and  had  no  interest  in  the  property  other  than 
a  commission  on  the  sales. 

3.  Mr.  Ellison  is  in  England,  and  has  been  for  some  time,  and  he  left  a 
power  of  attorney  with  Mr.  Stevens  to  act  in  his  absen&e. 

4.  Mr.  Stevens  enters  the  goods,  and  swears  that  Mr.  Ellison  was  the 
owner,  and  Mr.  Moss  was  conversant,  as  I  believe,  of  the  fact  of  Mr. 
Stevens's  oath  as  to  ownership. 

5.  The  invoice  having  been  made  out  by  the  house  with  a  falsehood 
on  the  face  of  it  is  a  sufficient  reason  for  the  seizure  of  the  goods. 

1  have  not  suggested  any  criminal  proceedings  against  the  parties,  but  I 
have  revoked  the  power  of  attorney  to  Mr.  Stevens,  and  will  no  longer 
permit  him  to  act  as  attorney. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 

P.  S.  Case  116  was  sent  out  of  town  before  we  knew  of  the  proceed- 
ings. 1  called  upon  them,  under  the  penal  bond,  for  the  appraised  value, 
viz :  $220,  which  they  deposited  with  me  ;  but  the  information  will  be 
against  the  case,  though  the  marshal  will  have  to  make  a  special  return 
to  the  monition,  unless  he  chooses  to  consider  it  in  custody.         J.  H. 


Treasury  Department,  August  30,  1839. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  5th  instant,  with  its  enclosures  in  reference  to 
frauds  practised  on  the  revenue  by  S.  R.  Wood  and  others,  by  invoicing 
too  low  the  value  of  certain  woollen  goods,  has  been  received  this  day. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


477 


I  have  to  return  you  my  thanks  for  the  information  therein  communicated, 
and  rejoice  to  find  that  you  are  taking  all  possible  legal  steps,  under  the 
existing  acts  of  Congress,  to  prevent  frauds  on  the  revenue. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury^ 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  7,  1839, 
Sir  :  I  protest,  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica, against  all  proceedings,  and  all  officers  engaged  therein,  which  results 
in  bringing  the  Government  in  debt  in  a  seizure  case,  when  there  was  no 
affirmation,  as  was  the  case  in  a  statement  submitted  to-day  by  the  deputy 
clerk  of  the  district  court.  On  the  29th  Ju»e,  I  reported  to  you  the  sei- 
zure of  10  cases  of  China,  imported  by  H.  La  Coste. 

These  were  imported,  it  is  true,  in  two  different  vessels,  but  they  ought 
to  have  been  put  in  one  libel  or  information.  Instead  of  that,  two  sepa- 
rate libels  were  filed,  and  two  sets  of  bills  of  costs  incurred,  making  up 
all  the  fund  in  one  case,  and  nearly  all  in  the  other.  The  Government  has 
not  in  this  respect  the  duty  even,  which  is  a  course  of  business  that  ought 
not  to  be  permitted. 

Respectfully,  • 
J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  September  9,  18391 
Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  7th  instant,  but  I  was  unable  io  make 
the  necessary  inquiries,  so  as  to  be  able  to  give  you  an  answer  before  this 
time.  1  cannot  find  any  person  who  has  any  knowledge  of  Mr:  Samuel 
Haight  Ainly,  but  I  know  enough  to  know  that  I  wish  sorr>e  other  person 
than  him  to  act  as  commissioner.  I  therefore  name  George  Humphreys, 
Esq.,  solicitor,  Manchester,  of  the  firm  of  Dennison,  Humphreys,  and 
Curbit,  Esqs.,  solicitors. 

Manchester  is  about  10  miles  from  Saddle  worth,  and  the  gentlemen  1 
name  will  attend  to  it.  Let  me  know  when  the  papers  go  out,  and  I  will 
write  an  especial  missive  myself. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Consulate  of  the  United  States, 

Liverpool,  September  10,  1839. 
Dear  Sir  :  Your  letter  announcing  the  success  of  the  United  States 


4  To 


Bep.  No.  669. 


in  their  suit  against  certain  defrauders  of  the  revenue  of  woollen  goods, 
of  whose  practices  I  gave  you  information,  was  duly  received  ;  and  I  am 
much  gratified  at  the  result. 

My  being  entitled  to  a  portion  of  the  forfeiture,  although  not  anticipa- 
ted at  the  time,  is  nevertheless  a  very  pleasing  piece  of  news  ;  and  1  trust, 
my  dear  sir,  that  you  will  protect  my  interest  in  this  affair  as  well  as  if 
any  others  1  may  have  the  good  fortune  to  bring  to  light.  You  may  rely 
on  my  vigilance  and  co-operation  with  you  in  the  detection  of  these  frauds ; 
and  in  the  course  of  future  proceedings,  should  it  be  necessary  to  issue 
commissions  for  testimony,  it  would  be  well  that  my  name  should  be 
placed  at  the  head  of  it,  as  in  that  way  I  shall  be  the  better  able  to  ferret 
out  the  truth. 

I  am,  dear  sir,  &c. 

FRANCIS  B.  OGDEN. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq., 

Collect or  of  the  port  of  New  York. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  September  13,  1839. 
Sir:  I  have  seized  the  following  goods,  imported  by  Francis  Black- 
burn, viz  : 

i   F  143  and  150,  eight  cases  cloths,  per  ship  Roscoe,  from  Liver- 
pool. 

  300,  308,  and  9,       "  "  "  Virginian. 

I  send  you  the  following  papers: 

1.  The  entry  sworn  to  before  deputy  Clinch,  for  this  17th  August. 

2.  The  two  invoices.  The  invoice  I  Roscoe,  amounts  to  £1,338  12s.  Ad, 
The  one  per  Virginian,  to  £1,741  15s.  9d. 

3.  The  appraisers  amounting,  for  I  Roscoe,  to  £1,458  12s.  1  of.,  and, 
lor  the  Virginian,  to  £2,033  3s.  \\d. 

The  appraisers  are  signed  by  John  Woodhead  and  Francis  Tryon.  I 
also  send  you  a  copy  of  the  examination  of  Mr.  Blackburn,  under  the  8th 
section  of  the  act  of  1 1th  July,  1832,  which  will  require  a  count  or  counts 
in  the  information  to  meet  the  case.  You  will  notice  that,  on  the  invoice 
by  the  Roscoe,  the  public  appraisers  have  passed  the  invoice,  deducting  5 
percent,  measurement,  (that  is,  not  allowing  the  measurement,)  which,  of 
course,  was  an  advance  of  the  invoice  5  per  cent. 

The  invoice  by  the  Virginian  they  passed  as  correct.  I  appealed  from 
their  decision,  and  the  result  is  the  appraisement  by  the  merchants, 
which  I  send  you.  I  proceed  upon  the  ground  that  their  appraisement  is 
conclusive,  and  we  are  to  look  only  to  the  entry  and  appraisement.  The 
parties  importing  are  not  bound  by  the  invoice,  nor  is  the  Government, 
i  would  like  a  personal  conference  with  you  as  early  as  would  meet  your 
■convenience. 

Respectfully , 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


479 


Custom- House,  New  York,  September  14,  1839. 

Sir:  I  have  received  your  letter  of  the  1 2th  instant,  relative  to  a  cir- 
cular from  the  Treasury  Department,  and,  in  answer,  have  to  say,  that 
you  need  not  pay  any  attention  to  it,  as  the  persons  employed  at  your  city 
will  be  included  in  the  returns  from  this  office,  as  they  are  paid  here. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

William  Sevmour,  Esq., 

Deputy  Collector^  Albany New  York. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  September  14,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  this  day  transferred  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer 
of  the  United  States,  for  the  receipts  of  the  week  ending  this  day,  the 
sum  of  $250,000. 

There  has  been  some  excitement  in  Wall  street  to-day.  The  stock  of 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States  fell  down  to  par  and  a  little  under,  which 
was  a  fall  of  over  5  per  cent.,  and  was  in  consequence  as  it  is  said  of  a 
unevv  batch"  of  post  notes  appearing  in  the  market,  which  it  is  supposed 
were  issued  on  their  own  account — that  is,  to  raise  funds  to  meet  their  own 
engagements. 

There  was  also  another  cause  of  excitement,  owing  to  the  fact  that  the 
city  banks,  who  under  an  arrangement  were  redeeming  the  notes  of  the 
country  banks,  stopped  that  redemption,  as  to  several  of  the  banks.  It 
is  said,  however,  that  some  arrangement  is  in  progress  to  continue  to  re- 
deem them.  If  this  is  not  done,  I  anticipate  great  trouble  in  business 
affairs.  In  addition  to  this,  if  the  news  from  the  other  side  by  the  Queen, 
(which  may  be  expected  on  Monday)  is  unfavorable,  I  dare  not  say  .how 
bad  i  apprehend  the  state  of  things  will  be. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  Sptember  16,  1839. 
Sir  :  We  had  a  fleet  of  ships  in  yesterday,  and  most  of  them  with 
large  cargoes.  I  have  been  compelled  to  take  another  store  to-day  for 
the  use  of  the  appraisers,  but  1  have  only  taken  it  by  the  month.  We 
took  in  over  1,000  packages,  on  Saturday,  into  the  appraisers' store  for  ex- 
amination, and  to-day  before  1  o'clock  we  had  over  600  more  ;  and  we 
were  forced  to  adopt  the  necessity  of  taking  the  store  alluded  to.  If  the 
merchants  took  their  goods  out  as  fast  as  they  were  examined,  we  might 
possibly  have  got  along,  but  as  it  is  there  was  no  other  way.  We  shall 
not  keep  the  store  one  day  longer  than  is  necessary. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Sepretary  of  the  Treasury. 


180 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  September  17,  1839. 
Sir:  I  have  to  state  that  arrangements  have  been  made  for  the  circu- 
lation of  the  redemption  of  the  notes  of  the  country  banks. 

The  Bank  of  America  agreed  to  advance  $30,000,  and  the  Manhattan 
Company  $20,000,  towards  that  object.  You  will,  of  course,  consider  it 
very  absurd  that  such  banks  should  have  hesitated  to  advance  such  trifling 
sums,  when  so  great  an  object  was  to  be  accomplished. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  Philadelphia,  September  20,  1839. 

Sir  :  As  there  are  other  parties  who  claim  distributive  shares  of  the 
nett  proceeds  of  the  three  packages  of  goods,  recently  condemned  as  for- 
feited by  the  district  court  for  the  eastern  district  of  Pennsylvania,  to 
which  it  is  presumed  your  letter  of  the  16th  refers,  and  who  claim  to 
hold  me  responsible  for  the  amount  of  their  shares  respectively,  you 
will  at  once  perceive  the  necessity  which  compels  me  to  decline  your 
friendly  invitation  to  say  what  form  shall  be  adopted  before  paying  over 
the  money  to  you  for  distribution.  The  persons  who  feel  themselves  in- 
terested in  the  proceeds  of  the  goods  forfeited  believe  your  claim  to  the 
distribution  to  be  of  a  character  so  novel,  and  so  entirely  unprecedented, 
that  they  cannot,  unimportant  as  the  sum  in  controversy  may  be  in  amount, 
consent  to  yield  to  the  collector  of  New  York  the  right  to  distribute  the 
proceeds  of  forfeitures  which  accrue  in  the  port  of  Philadelphia  alone. 
It  is  considered  here,  and  all  the  precedents  to  be  found  in  this  office 
show  conclusively,  that  the  nett  proceeds  of  forfeitures  prosecuted  to 
judgment  in  this  post,  no  matter  where  the  goods  were  landed,  were 
uniformly  distributed  by  the  collector  of  Philadelphia,  and  the  portion 
accruing  to  the  officers  of  the  customs  was  divided  between  the  collector, 
naval  officer,  and  surveyor  of  the  port,  in  which  the  condemnation  took 
place.  Believing  that  every  principle  of  equity  and  justice  demand  such 
a  distribution,  and  that  Congress  never  contemplated  any  other — especially 
where,  as  in  this  case,  the  seizure  was  made  by  direction  of  the  deputy 
collector  of  this  port,  on  the  information  of  a  citizen  of  Philadelphia  un- 
connected with  the  customs — and  in  the  absence  of  any  directions,  emana- 
ting from  the  collector  of  New  York  or  any  one  acting  by  his  authority, 
I  must  beg  to  be  excused  from  taking  any    [Manuscript  defective.] 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  20,  1839. 

Sir:  I  handed  you  some  time  since  a  memorandum  for  $92  13,  which 
you  were  to  collect  and  hand  over  to  me,  as  a  payment  made  in  error.  I 
would  be  much  obliged  if  you  would  give  it  your  immediate  attention. 

Mr.  Waters,  the  cashier,  has  shown  me  your  memorandum  for  $543  59 
of  surplus  moneys  belonging  to  the  office,  which  you  did  not  account  to 
him  for  when  you  left.    I  would  be  glad  if  you  would  hand  this,  over  to 


Rep.  No.  669. 


481 


him.  It  is  the  balance  of  what  is  called  the  error  fund,  which  should 
have  been  left  to  indemnify  me  for  any  errors  the  other  way,  which,  of 
eourse,  I  should  have  to  lose  irt  case  the  error  could  not  be  detected^ 
and  therefore  it  should  have  been  accounted  for  by  you. 

Respectfully, 

.  J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Joshua  Phillips,  New  York. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  September  25,  1839, 

Sir  :  I  received  to-day  your  letter  of  the  24th  instant,  in  answer  to 
mine  of  the  7th  instant ;  and  although  it  may  not  seem  to  require  an 
answer,  it  is  but  just  to  all  parties  concerned  that  one  should  be  given. 

I  wrote  the  letter  of  the  7th  to  you,  because  I  could  not  present  my 
complaints  in  this  matter  through  any  other  channel  than  the  district 
attorney's  office.  In  the  case  of  seizures,  the  clerk  of  the  district  court, 
as  you  know,  according  to  the  prescribed  forms  of  law,  accounts  to  the 
collector  for  the  proceeds  arising  therefrom,  and  yet  the  collector  has  no 
official  connexion  with  him,  except  to  receipt  to  him  for  what  he  pays 
over,  or  to  pay  bills  he  may  present  growing  out  of  the  proceedings, 
when  the  avails  are  not  adequate  to  pay  the  expenses. 

In  the  particular  case  referred  to,  of  the  seizure  of  four  cases  of  china, 
the  clerk,  so  far  from  paying  over  any  thing  for  the  use  of  the  United 
States  and  the  seizing  officer,  brought  the  United  States  in  debt  about 
$2  35,  and  the  deputy  clerk,  who  presented  the  account,  insisted  upon 
the  payment  of  that  sum,  which  1  refused  to  pay  in  any  other  form  than 
protesting  to  you  against  proceedings  resulting  as  those  did. 

That  your  practice  since  you  have  been  in  the  office  has  been  liberal  in 
cases  of  this  sort,  as  well  towards  the  seizing  officers  as  the  Government, 
I  am  bound  to  admit,  and  more  especially  so,  as  you  had  judicial  authority, 
in  the  decision  of  Judge  Van  Ness,  for  making  the  business  much  more 
profitable  than  you  have  made  it.  When  you  came  into  office,  you  found 
a  letter  on  file  from  me  to  your  predecessor,  under  date  of  the  22d  of  Oc- 
tober last,  on  the  subject  of  this  very  matter;  and,  from  the  communication 
of  your  official  action  as  district  attorney,  you  expressed  your  dissatis- 
faction with  the  opinion  of  Judge  Van  Ness,  and  informed  me  that  you 
would  not  adopt  it  in  any  case  not  required  by  the  interests  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  and  the  manifest  convenience  of  the  proceedings,  and  I  am 
not  aware  that  you  have  done  so  in  any  case  but  that  of  the  china,  and 
then,  no  doubt,  owing  to  the  fact  of  my  not  calling  your  attention  to  it. 

I  made  you  the  communication,  in  these  cases,  in  great  haste  on  Satur- 
day, the  29th  of  June,  for  the  purpose  of  putting  in  your  hands  all  the 
cases  in  which  the  late  surveyor  (who  went  out  of  office  on  that  day) 
was  interested. 

I  make  these  explanations  in  relation  to  my  letter  of  the  7th  instant 
as  an  act  of  justice  to  you. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


482  Kep.  No.  669. 

Custom- House,  New  York,  September  30,  1S39. 

Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  26th  instant  reached  me  on  the  28th,  but  the 
pressure  cf  my  engagements  were  such  that  I  had  not  the  opportunity  ta 
answer  it  before  the  mail  of  this  day. 

In  my  letter  to  Mr.  Miller,  to  which  you  refer,  I  supposed  I  had  placed 
die  matter  in  its  true  lighf,  and  I  am  happy  to  find,  as  1  do  by  your  letter, 
that  you  can  concur  with  me  in  the  course  1  had  adopted  ;  and  hence 
you  will  perceive  that  I  am  found  to  assume,  that  the  collector  of  Phila- 
delphia has  no  goods  under  seizure  that  answer  the  description  referred 
to  by  you,  or  else  he,  instead  of  you,  would  have  made  an  application 
similar  to  the  one  you  have  made.  I  do  not  feel  myself  at  liberty  to  act 
as  a  volunteer  in  this  matter  any  further  than  I  have  already  done — by 
which  I  mean  that  I  have  already  obligated  myself  to  furnish  to  the  col- 
lector of  Philadelphia  any  papers  on  file  in  this  office  appertaining  to  the 
matters  you  inquire  about ;  and  beyond  that  1  do  not  think  that  1  have  a 
right  to  volunteer  my  services,  especially  as  by  legal  process  you  have  the 
power  to  cornel  me  to  testify  in  the  controversy,  and  give  the  proof 
which  you  call  upon  me  to  furnish  in  anticipation  of  that  controversy.  I 
cannot  for  one  moment  suppose  that  the  collector  of  Philadelphia  is  in- 
sensible to  the  rights  of  the  individuals  you  represent,  and  therefore,  if  he 
had  any  goods  in  his  possession,  under  seizure,  answering  the  description 
of  those  you  seem  to  suppose  have  regularly  passed  the  custom-house  of 
the  port  of  New  York,  that  he  would  have  called  upon  me  for  the  evi- 
dence of  the  fact  you  allege  to  exist ;  and  hence  I  am  forced  to  the  con- 
clusion, that,  in  the  absence  of  such  call,  he  has  not  in  fact  any  such 
goods  in  his  possession.  You  stated  that  the  parties  will  furnish  any  proof 
that  may  be  desired  that  these  goods  have  been  removed  to  the  stoies  of 
the  Philadelphia  custom-house — by  which  1  understand  that  you  ask  me  to 
decide  upon  the  law  and  the  facts,  in  a  matter  which  you  assume  to  be  in 
issue  between  your  clients  and  the  collector  of  Philadelphia. 

I  must  respectfully  decline  to  accept  that  office,  and  1  am  quite  sure  that 
you  will  not  complain  of  me  for  this,  as  your  request  is  predicated  upon 
my  letter  to  Mr.  Miller,  which  you  have  already  approved  of,  and  in  which 
1  distinctly  stated  the  proper  course  1  felt  it  my  duty  to  adopt.  I  return 
you  the  paper  you  enclosed  me  by  the  name  of  the  "  invoice,"  which,  if 
it  be  correctly  named  by  you,  may  be  of  service  to  you. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

J.  R.  Ingersoll,  Esq.,  Philadelphia, 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  S,  1839. 
Sir:  In  consequence  of  the  calamitous  fires  which  occurred  in  this  city 
on  the  night  of  the  5th  instant,  and  which  happened  at  all  most  the  same 
time  in  different  parts  of  the  city,  I  was  induced  to  believe  they  were  by 
design  ;  and,  the  United  States  public  stores  being  at  present  very  full  of 
merchandise,  the  most  of  which  is  well  covered  by  insuiance,  and  in  these 
times  might  prove  a  good  sale  to  the  underwriters,  if  destroyed  by  fire,  it 
was  suggested  that  I  ought  more  rigidly  protect  them  from  the  acts  of  in- 
cendiaries, as  well  as  from  accident  incident  to  such  occasions,  by  the  ap- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


483 


pointment  of  an  additional  number  of  night  watch.  I  accordingly  ap- 
pointed and  put  on  duty  last  night  the  following  persons,  viz  :  John  J. 
Moffit,  James  Morrison,  Daniel  Chambers,  John  C.  Attstant,  William 
Brown,  Michael  Orsburn,  Robert  O'Donnell,  John  Hanrathy,  John  S. 
Magnus,  and  William  D.  Traphagan,  for  which  I  respectfully  ask  for  your 
approval.  I  shall  of  course  discontinue  them  as  soon  as  the  public  inter- 
est will  admit. 

I  also  nominate  Samuel  Vunck  as  night  watch  at  Brooklyn,  in  place  of 
Michael  Colgan,  deceased. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House.  New  York,  October  9,  1839. 

Sir:  We  have  had  a  great  deal  of  excitement  here  to-day,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  protest  for  nonpayment  of  some  post  notes  of  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States,  which  were  due  this  day  and  payable  in  this  city.  It 
of  course  follows  that  this  bank  has  stopped  payment.  We  now  appre- 
hend that  it  may  desire  companions  in  misery,  and  therefore  what  power 
it  may  have  left  will  be  thrown  into  this  city  to  harrass,  and,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, oppress  our  banks.  The  latter  are  no  doubt  in  a  condition  such  as- 
would  be  termed  strong,  and  the  officers  connected  with  them  say  they 
are  out  of  danger  ;  but  I  apprehend  that  there  is  not  sufficient  strength  to 
withhold  the  effect  of  a  general  loss  of  confidence  in  our  banking  institu- 
tions, and  therefore  it  is  that  I  should  not  be  surprised  if  we  should  have 
to  yield  to  the  crisis.  In  saying  this,  I  do  not  mean  to  express  an  opin- 
ion that  the  course  of  the  Government  should  at  present  be  changed  in 
its  business  with  them,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that,  so  far  as  the  law  wilt 
sanction,  it  is  our  duty  to  give  them  its  confidence  and  countenance.  We 
have  large  amounts  falling  due,  which  could  not  be  met  promptly  if  our 
banks  should  falter. 

I  would  not  express  the  opinion  I  do  in  any  other  quarter ;  but  as  I  have 
on  all  occasions  written  you  my  honest  convictions  on  this  and  kindred 
subjects,  I  think  I  should  do  so  now. 

I  am  reassured  again,  to-day,  by  the  banks  that  have  my  deposites,  that, 
in  any  event,  they  shall  be  paid  in  specie.  It  is  quite  probable  that  all  the 
drafts  on  me,  especially  from  the  South,  will  have  to  be  paid  in  specie 
by  the  banks  on  which  1  draw  ;  and  hence  the  importance  of  relieving 
them  as  much  as  possible. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  10,  1839. 
Sir:  I  wrote  you  yesterday  in  relation  to  the  suspension  of  the  Bank 
of  the  United  States,  and  the  effect  it  might  produce  on  the  banks  in  this 
city. 


484 


Rep.  No.  669. 


I  was  apprehensive,  for  the  reasons  stated,  that  the  latter  banks  migb 
be  forced  to  yield  to  the  crisis.    I  am  now  satisfied  that  there  is  ever 
probability  that  such  will  not  be  the  case.    There  was  a  meeting  of  th< 
officers  of  the  principal  banks  last  evening,  when  their  respective  condi 
tions  were  made  known  to  each  other;  and  the  conclusion  they  came  t< 
was,  that  the  banks  in  this  city  could,  under  any  and  all  circumstances,  b« 
sustained.    I  believe  there  is  good  reason  to  suppose  that  this  is  true*!  k 
There  has  been  no  excitement  to-day  and  no  run  upon  any  of  the  banks 
A  great  many  bonds  have  been  paid  in  advance,  and  some  not  due  til 
December;  and  this,  of  course,  was  upon  the  idea  that  the  banks  wouk  i 
suspend  when  it  would  be  necessary  to  pay  them  in  specie.    This  may  bc  j 
taken  as  an  indication  of  the  opinion  of  the  persons  paying;  but  still  the'  I 
majority  of  our  people  believe  that  our  banks  can  go  on,  and  also  most  01  j; 
the  New  England  banks,  though  we  anticipate  that  all  South  of  this  will!  i 
suspend.    It  becomes  important  to  the  Government  and  the  character  ol  J 
the  nation  that  we  should  in  this  city  preserve  our  integrity  ;  and,  to  that]!, 
end,  it  is  desirable  that  all  the  strength  should  be  thrown  in  this  city  that  1 
can  be,  in  order  the  better  to  effect  so  desirable  an  object. 

You  will  see  by  the  evening  papers  that  the  steamer  Liverpool  arrived  j 
this  morning.    She  brings  bad  advices  for  our  commercial  people.  The]! 
accounts  are  various  as  to  the  condition  of  the  credit  of  the  Bank  of  then 
United  States  in  Europe.    I  have  not  seen  the  version  the  evening  papers]! 
give  to  the  affair;  but  the  truth  I  understand  to  be,  that  Messrs.  Hotten-I 
geur  &:  Co.  refused  acceptance  of  about  7,000,000  francs,  and  that  Mr.| 
Jaudon  repaired  to  Paris  and  induced  Messrs.  Rothschild  to  accept,  fori 
which  he  was  to  give  security  in  London,  but  the  security  it  is  said  was! 
not  deemed  very  satisfactory.    You  will  no  doubt  see  the  rumors  that 
the  Bank  of  England  is  again  to  resort  to  one  pound  notes,  with  the  view 
of  a  currency. 

It  is  stated  by  Mr.  Wild,  of  London,  who  came  passenger  in  the 
steamer,  on  being  told  the  amount  of  specie  that  had  been  sent  from  this 
country  to  England,  (the  news  of  which  had  not  reached  London  when 
he  left,)  with  that  which  had  been  sent  from  Mexico  and  South  America, 
would  probably  be  sufficient  to  avoid  a  resort  to  the  issue  of  small  notes, 
and  that  the  Bank  of  England  would  avoid  it  as  long  as  possible.  I  think 
the  latter  information  is  that  this  bank  will  not  suspend,  or  issue  small 
bills,  which  is  the  very  next  step  to  suspending. 

The  President  reached  here  this  morning,  and  designs  to  leave  on  Sat- 
urday. 

Respectfullv, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  11,  1839. 
Sir:  Our  business  affairs  stand  very  much  as  they  did  yesterday. 
There  has  been  no  press  or  run  on  the  banks  to-day  ;  and  the  news  from 
Boston  is,  that  the  banks  there  will  stand  by,  and  that  the  impression  is, 
they  have  the  ability  to  weather  the  storm. 


Rep.  No.  669.  485 

'  I  repeat  the  remark  I  made  yesterday,  that  it  is  very  important  the 
jovernment  throw  all  the  strength  here,  in  the  emergency,  that  it  can. 

We  have  a  very  large  fleet  of  vessels  in  to-day  from  Europe,  but  I  have 
lot  had'  the  opportunity  to  sec  what  sort  of  cargoes  they  have. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  12,  1839.  | 

1   Sir  :  I  have  this  day  transferred  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer 
||of  the  United  States,  for  the  receipts  of  the  week  ending  this  day,  the 
V  sum  of  S3 10,000. 

if  We  have  received  to-day  the  entry  of  31  vessels  from  foreign  ports, 
(among  which  are  8  packet  ships,  and  most  of  them  full  freighted,  which 
lis  by  no  means  a  desirable  picture  at  the  present  crisis.  A  large  amount 
ri  of  woollens  have  been  entered  to-day  for  export.  Every  thing  has  gone 
J  on  quietly  to-day  in  reference  to  the  banks.  You  will  see,  by  the  specie 
er [notes  I  make  to-day,  that  about  $470,000  goes  out  to-day  in  the  various 
''Vessels  for  Europe,  and  it  is  said  more  will  be  manifested  on  Monday  ;  but 
Ijj  I  do  not  learn  that  much  of  it  has  been  drawn  from  the  banks. 
^  '  We  had  payable  to-day  about  $175,000  of  bonds — that  is,  including  those 
i  due  to-day  and  to-morrow.  A  large  portion  of  those  due  to-morrow  have 
]  been  paid  to-day,  and  most  of  them  due  to-day  have  also  been  paid. 

The  news  is  unfavorable  for  Rhode  Island,  and  we  fear  the  bank  there 
may  suspend;  but  from  Boston  the  accounts  are  encouraging,  and  we  hope 
to  be  sustained  from  the  latter  section.  Our  confidence  is  still  firm  that 
[we  can  get  through. 

I  enclose  a  copy  of  a  circular  issued  to-day  by  the  State  Bank  to  the 
country  banks  of  this  State.  This  bank  is  one  in  which  I  deposite,  and 
(one  that  has  nobly  sustained  our  country  banks  when  most  others  of  our 
[city  banks  were  unwilling  to  lend  any  aid.  You  will  see  with  what  a 
store  of  confidence  this  bank  speaks  of  being  able  to  sustain  itself,  and 
also  of  its  determination  to  make  "  sacrifices"  to  meet  the  crisis.  I  again 
request  what  I  have  asked  in  my  former  letters,  and  which  I  am  urged  to  re- 
peat by  the  friends  of  the  Government,  that  all  aid  be  furnished  us  that  is 
possible  for  the  Government  to  offer. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodrury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  16,  1839. 
Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  14th  instant,  directing  me  to  deposite 
one  hundred  thousand  dollars  ($100,000)  in  the  Manhattan  Bank  to  the 
special  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  which  amount  I  have  this  day  deposited, 
and  charged  to  his  account,  and  transmitted  the  usual  receipt  to  him. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  W'oodrury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


486 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  October  16,  1839. 
Sir:  In  a  casual  conversation  with  you  to-day,  1  understood  you  to  re 
maik  that  my  account  with  your  bank  was  more  injurious  than  beneficial 
and  that  it  put  the  bank  in  such  jeopardy  that  you  were  unwilling  to  con 
tinue  it. 

I  subsequently  inquired  whether  I  was  to  understand  from  those  re*] 
marks  that  you  did  not  wish  me  to  make  the  usual  deposite  to  day.  fl 
answer  to  which  inquiry,  I  understood  you  to  say,  in  substance,  that  yoi 
would  receive  the  deposites,  to  the  end  that  I  might  have  the  opportunity 
to  make  a  satisfactory  arrangement  in  relation  to  the  matter  elsewhere. 

Under  this  state  of  the  case,  as  understood  by  me,  it  is  due  to  youi 
bfenk,  as  well  as  to  myself  and  the  interest  of  others  entrusted  to  me,  t( 
have  it  perfectly  full  understood  on  what  grounds  the  discontinuance  o 
our  relations  take  place  ;  and  therefore  I  address  you  this  communicatior 
for  the  purpose  of  knowing  whether  I  understand  correctly. 

I  take  the  occasion  to  say,  that  my  confidence  in  your  institution  anc 
the  integrity  of  its  officers  has  in  no  manner  abated,  and  that  1  am  en-' 
tirely  satisfied  with  the  manner  in  which  you  have  per  formed  your  obliga- 
tions to  me  and  to  those  whose  funds  I  control,  and  I  have  also  entire 
and  perfect  faith  that  you  would  continue  to  perform  those  obligations  in 
the  like  manner;  but  as  I  am  wholly  unwilling  to  be  a  burden  in  times 
like  these  to  any  bank,  or  to  put  it  in  the  power  of  any  hank  to  reproach- 
me  or  the  Government,  whose  interest  I  have  in  charge,  with  being  a: 
source  of  inconvenience  to  it,  I  think  it  proper,  before  I  take  any  steps 
towards  a  new  arrangement,  that  I  ask  you  to  say  to  me,  in  writing, 
whether  I  understood  your  verbal  communication  correctly,  and  to  ask| 
you  to  inform  me  what  your  present  wish  is  on  the  subject  referred  to. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

C.  W.  Lawrence,  Esq., 

President  of  the  Bank  of  the  State,  New  York. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  17,  1839. 
Sir  :  Business  affairs  have  gone  on  very  well  to-day.  Bills  on  Eng- 
land for  the  steamer  have  been  sold  to  such  an  amount  as  will  stop  specie, 
as  we  verily  believe.  The  insurance  officers  have  raised  the  premium  of 
insurance  i  per  cent,  which  of  course  increases  the  expenses  of  shipping 
and  adds  much  to  the  value  of  bills.  In  that  you  will  perceive  the  effort 
that  is  making  on  alt  sides  to  sustain  our  banks  for  the  crisis. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  October  18,  1839. 
Sir:  Yours  of  the  1  1th  and  12th  instant  came  safe  to  hand. 
I  thank  you  for  the  information  they  communicate  as  to  the  condition 


Eep.  No.  669.  487 

of  business  generally  as  well  as  in  the  custom-house,  and  am  happy  to 
learn  in  relation  to  the  banks  in  your  city  and  further  east  that  they  are 
likely  to  be  successful  in  their  efforts  to  continue  specie  payments. 

In  one  of  those  letters  you  remark  u  that  it  is  very  important  the  Gov- 
ernment throw  all  the  strength  here  in  the  emergency  it  can,"  and  in  the 
other  you  say  u  I  am  urged  to  repeat,  by  the  friends  of  the  Government, 
,  that  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance  that  all  aid  be  furnished  us  that  it  is 
possible  for  the  Government  to  afford."    If  these  expressions  relate  to  the 
exertions  of  the  Government  to  provide  for  meeting  with  promptitude, 
and  in  a  legal  currency,  all  the  numerous  and  heavy  expenses  imposed 
I  on  it  in  New  York,  and  to  grant  every  indulgence,  in  the  great  collections 
[  of  duties,  which  the  difficulties  of  the  crisis  demand  and  the  Executive 
'Is  authority  extends  to,  I  can  assure  you  with  sincere  pleasure  of  the  in- 
J  clination,  and  it  is  hoped  the  means,  of  this  Department  to  meet  your  most 
If  sanguine  wishes;  but  if  they  relate  to  extraneous  "aid"  to  be  furnished 
j  to  the  banks  by  the  Government,  in  sustaining  specie  payments,  it  is  ira- 
h  portant  that  the  position,  the  power,  and  the  disposition  of  the  Treasury 
jj  on  that  subject  should  not  be  misunderstood. 

I  shall,  therefore,  proceed  briefly  to  explain  them. 

1st,  The  balance  now  in  the  Treasury  is  very  limited,  and  especially 
on  the  seaboard.  It  has  been  the  policy  of  Congress,  since  1836,  to  keep 
it  small ;  and  the  redemption  of  Treasury  notes,  with  the  current  expen- 
ses, has  left  on  the  whole  of  the  Atlantic  coast  less  than  two  millions  of 
dollars.  Most  of  that  is  already  in  your  city,  arising  from  duties  and 
loans  there  on  Treasury  notes;  and  none  has  been  transferred  there  ex- 
cept what  has  been  employed  there  in  redeeming  the  latter. 

The  twTo  banks  in  which  1  deposite  (here  have  now  more  Treasury  notes 
on  hand,  issued  to  them  for  money  credited  to  us,  than  the  whole  amount 
of  the  public  money  in  their  vaults  or  credited  to  us  on  their  books. 

2d.  The  future  collections  and  transfers  must  be  employed  there  in  the 
same  operations  before  named  ;  and  1  am  expressly  forbidden,  by  the  de- 
posite act  of  1836,  to  order  any  transfer  of  money  with  a  view  to  sustain 
banks. 

3d.  The  suspension  of  specie  payments  in  several  cities  south  of  New 
York  will  require  me  to  place  in  New  York  a  large  proportion  of  drafts 
in  order  to  meet  our  large  engagements  legally;  and  hence  our  depositee 
there  will  probably  decrease  rather  than  increase,  though  J  shall  be  happy 
to  draw  on  your  city,  as  on  others,  only  when  rendered  proper  by  the  pub- 
lic interest.  But,  under  our  present  system,  all  the  funds  there  of  a  pub- 
lic character,  whether  in  banks  or  with  public  officers,  are  to  be  held  con- 
stantly ready  to  meet  public  demands. 

4th.  You  thus  perceive,  that,  though  uniting  with  the  citizens  of  New 
York  in  ardent  wish  that  they  may  prove  successful  in  their  efforts  to 
sustain  specie  payments,  the  position  and  power  of  this  Department  on 
that  subject  are  very  limited,  and  can  only  incidentally  promote  its  favor- 
able disposition  towards  the  banks,  while  in  the  faithful  discharge  of  its 
direct  fiscal  duties. 

The  crisis  is,  I  am  aware,  a  trying  one  to  the  merchants  and  banks;  and 
they  deserve  the  sympathy  and  assistance,  as  well  as  the  commendations 
of  all  good  citizens  in  such  laudable  exertions  to  preserve  a  sound  cur- 
rency and  meet  their  obligations  with  punctuality  and  fidelity.    But  the 


488  Rep.  No.  669. 

funds  of  this  Department  being  under  the  control  of  express  laws,  ar 
its  officers  being  bound  to  enforce  those  laws,  I  am  conscious  th 
neither  you  nor  your  friends  can  desire  those  funds  to  be  employed  I 
any  manner  not  consistent  with  public  duty. 

Nor  do  I  suppose  that,  in  the  expressions  referred  to  in  your  late  le 
ters,  any  desire  was  entertained  by  you  for  any  step  to  be  adopted  whit 
was  improper.  But,  in  order  that  you  and  others  might  be  aware  of  th 
general  facts  and  considerations  which  exist,  and  which  govern  the  D( 
partment  on  this  subject,  and  which  are  necessary  to  be  known  to  prevei 
misconception  as  to  its  course,  I  have  made  these  hasty  suggestions,  an 
trust  they  will  prove  satisfactory. 

Respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  19,  1839. 

Sir:  The  steamer  left  to-day,  and  took  with  her  £79,995 — equal  t< 
$324,008,  in  specie,  whieh  is  quite  as  large  an  amount  as  was  anticipates 
yesterday;  $153,000  of  which  I  judge  to  belong  to  the  United  Stater 
Bank,  from  the  name  of  the  person  who  cleared  it.  A  similar  amoun; 
was  shipped  by  a  house  in  this  eity,  who  had  negotiated  the  bills  of  thai 
bank,  and  the  object  was  to  protect  the  bills  on  the  other  side  to  save  the 
damage  ;  and  the  remainder  was  shipped  by  several  underwriters  in  the 
ordinary  course  of  trade. 

1  have  never  seen  so  much  distress  for  money  before ;  and  yet  it  is 
very  remarkable  that  all  the  bonds  due  {o-day  except  one  are  paid,  and 
all  that  are  due  to-morrow  (Sunday)  are  also  paid,  except  two,  amount- 
ing in  all  to  about  $2,500;  and  the  whole  sum  due  in  the  two  days  was 
about  $51,000 — all  of  which  tends  to  lessen  the  liabilities  of  bank6  to  de- 
positors, for  the  bonds  are  paid  out  of  deposites  and  not  of  discounts. 

If  the  banks  do  not  feel  themselves  able  to  extend  their  discounts  to  the 
merchants  in  the  course  of  next  week,  I  dread  the  consequences.  It  is  a 
trying  crisis.  The  banks  are  determined  to  go  through,  and  they  will  at 
all  hazards ;  but  the  merchants  will  have  to  suspend.  I  see  no  other 
couise  left  them,  and  to  what  extent  the  receipts  of  this  office  may  be 
affected  i  cannot  say. 

I  hope  for  the  best, 

Verv  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

lion.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  19,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  17th  instant,  in  relation  to  your  draft  on 
me,  which  had  been  returned  for  irregularity  of  endorsement.    The  draft 


Rep.  No.  669.  489 


came  back  this  morning,  and  was  paid  before  nine  o'clock  at  the  request 
of  the  person  presenting  it,  by  a  check  dated  yesterday,  so  that  it  could 
be  sent  in  with  the  bank  exchanges  to-day. 

The  course  of  business  in  the  office  is,  for  persons  presenting  drafts  to 
call  at  the  auditor's  office,  where  the  regularity  of  the  endorsement  is 
1  examined  ;  bu(,  in  the  present  instance,  the  draft  happened  to  be  first  pre- 
sented t®  me.    I  asked  the  auditor  if  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of  audit- 
t  ling  drafts  so  endorsed,  and  he  answered  in  the  negative,  and  advised 
ijne  not  to  pay  it.    I  asked  the  advice  of  Robert  White,  of  the  Manhattan 
iBank,  G.  A.  Worth,  of  the  City  Bank,  and  R.  Wethers,  of  the  State 
Bank,  all  of  whom  concurred  in  opinion  that  it  ought  n6t  to  be  paid. 

1  did  ask  the  Bank  of  America,  and  the  president  expressed  the  opin- 
ion that  he  should  pay  it ;  but  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  considering  that 
i|  bank  as  orthodox  on  all  subjects,  as  some  persons  are,  and  therefore  its  opin- 
k  ion  did  not  control  the  opinions  of  three  otker  equally  intelligent  bwik 
[  officers  and  the  uniform  rule  of  my  own  office,  as  represented  to  me  by 
'  the  auditor. 

If  it  produces  a  bad  effect  on  the  public  mind  in  reference  to  a  public 
,(  officer  who  does  his  business  correctly,  what  would  be  the  effect  in  rela- 
tion to  one  who  does  it  incorrectly,  as  I  distinctly  state  you  bave  done  in 
'if  the  present  instance  ?  And  if  you  have  no  better  excuse  for  addressing  me 
I  in  the  tone  you  have  in  relation  to  this  matter,  I  recommend  that  you 
€  spare  yourself  the  trouble  of  writing  at  all.  Ther  e  is  no  such  affidavit  as 
ityou  refer  to. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

V     Elias  Kane,  Esq., 

Navy  Agent,  Washington  City,  D.  C. 


New  York,  October  20,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  18th  instant,  in  reply  to  mine  of  the  11th 
and  12th  instant,  in  which  you  quote  short  paragraphs  from  both  concern- 
ing the  condition  of  money  and  business  affairs  in  this  city. 

The  pecuniary  interest  of  the  Government,  in  the  great  struggle  now 
going  on  here  in  reference  to  a  preservation  of  the  currency  in  this  sec- 
tion of  the  country,  is  infinitely  more  extensive  than  that  of  any  individ- 
ual or  corporation,  apart  from  any  interest  it  may  have  in  the  character  of 
the  country  at  home  and  abroad. 

There  were  about  three  millions  of  dollars  to  receive  in  this  port  be- 
tween the  periods  of  the  suspension  of  the  banks  of  the  United  States 
and  the  first  of  January,  and,  in  the  event  of  a  suspeniion  of  the  banks  in 
this  city,  that  amount  could  be  received  only  in  specie  or  Treasury  notes  ; 
and  whether  the  banks  do  or  do  not  suspend  affects,  in  my  judgment, 
materially  the  amount  of  our  collections.  It  is  also  tery  important,  with 
reference  to  those  collections,  that  the  banks  have  the  power  to  make 
loans  to  those  who  have  payment  to  make  to  the  Government ;  and  hence 
I  recommended  M  that  the  Government  should  throw  all  the  strength  here 
in  the  emergency  that  it  could.'5  It  is  an  act  of  justice  to  those  who  are 
struggling  to  maintain  their  commercial  integrity,  as  well  as  a  matter  of 
policy  with  reference  to  its  own  interests.    I  intended,  by  the  recommen- 


490 


Bep.  No.  669. 


elation,  to  suggest  to  you,  that  if  you  had  found  out  "  new  specie"-paM 
ing  places,  you  exhaust  those  before  drawing  upon  us  here,  which  woul 
in  effect  be  "throwing  strength"  into  this  city.    Every  draft  drawn  on  u 
here  in  favor  of  the  East  (that  is,  beyond  Providence)  we  expect  to  g€ 
back  through  the  ordinary  operations  of  trade,  provided  they  do  not  sus 
pend  there,  and  I  think  they  will  not ;  but  that  which  goes  South  we  can; 
not  get  back.    This  week  will  no  doubt  be  a  trying  one,  but  1  have  a;i 
abiding  faith  that  the  banks  will  survive. 

The  payments  at  the  custom-house  are  small.  We  have  only  abou 
$150,000  due  in  bonds  for  all  the  week,  which  makes  it  favorable  to  thi 
merchants. 

The  papers  from  Boston  to-day  speak  confidently  of  the  banks  goin^ 
on,  and  that  the  money  market  is  easier.    I  have  not  seen  any  letters. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Consulate  of  the  United  States, 

Liverpool,  October  22,  1839. 

Dear  Sir:  I  have  this  morning  conversed  with  a  person  who  is  well 
acquainted  with  ail  the  woollen  frauds,  from  whom  I  have  deiived  some 
valuable  information.  There  is  an  article  manufactured  at  Leeds,  in  imi- 
tation of  French  merino,  and  which  is  uniformly  entered  in  the  United 
States  under  the  denomination  of  worsteds ;  whereas  they  are  strictly 
woollens,  the  proof  of  which  is  easily  obtained.  He  says  any  commis- 
sion sent  out,  as  the  one  you  lately  advised  me  of,  will  inevitably  be  re- 
turned  with  every  thins;  the  defendants  desire.  Thev  will  swear  through 
thick  and  thin.  He  agrees  with  me,  that  the  only  mode  of  getting  at  the 
truth  is  the  one  I  have  suggested,  and  says  it  had  better  be  executed  in 
Liverpool,  where  lespeetahlc  witnesses  will  attend  that  would  not  like  the 
publicity  of  doing  so  on  the  spot,  and  thinks  wherever  commissions  have 
been  sent  on  the  part  of  the  defendants,  others  should  be  applied  for  on 
the  part  of  the  plaintiffs — that  a  yard  or  halt  a  yard  at  least  of  the  cloth 
should  be  attached,  of  each  piece,  when  the  value  could  be  clearly  estab- 
lished to  within  6c/.  or  \s.  a  yard.  If  so  large  a  piece  is  not  sent,  let  the 
exact  width  be  given,  as  that  is  necessary  to  establish  the  value  for  any 
thing  from  Huddersfield  or  the  neighborhood.    Let  the  names  of  John 

Brooke  and   Mallinson  be  inserted  as  witnesses — for  Leeds,  James 

Hargreaves,  James  Robinson,  and  David  Cooper,  merchants.  From  these 
men  I  shall  be  able  to  get  at  the  bottom  of  the  affair,  and  you  may  depend 
upon  it  I  will  spaie  no  pains.    The  Bottomleys  boast  openly  that  they 

<iont  care  a  d  n — they  have  already  made  enough  out  of  the  United 

States  to  satisfy  them. 

I  am  vours,  truly, 

FRANCIS  B.  OGDEN. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq., 

Collector  of  the  port  of  Nexo  York* 


Rep.  No.  6i>9.  491 

Extract  of  a  letter  from  A.  B.  Mead  to  B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  dated  New 
York,  Appraisers1  office,  October  24,  1839. 

Mr.  Roosevelt  will  urge  (and  I  think  the  trade  will  pretty  generally  lean 
towards  him)  that  all  glass  used  for  windows  is  window  glass,  and  that  the 
"H  use  to  which  it  is  to  be  applied,  and  not  its  distinctive  character,  shall 
1  form  the  rule  for  its  classification. 

The  usages  of  trade,  the  commercial  terms,  and  the  ordinary  sense  in 
which  the  terms  are  used  and  understood,  must,  after  all,  determine  the 
character  of  the  article  ;  and  1  am  of  opinion  that  it  will  not  be  difficult 
!  to  satisfy  a  jury  that  plate  glass  has  never  been  known  as  window  glass, 
although  for  some  vears  back  it  has  been  used  by  the  richer  classes  of 
'  society  lor  that  purpose. 

Whatever  questions  you  may  propound  to  those  who  are  brought  upon 
the  stand,  you  will  find  that,  whenever  the  answer  required  to  be  given 
(and  which  in  the  presence  of  the  court  and  jury  they  dare  not  evade) 
j  militates  against  their  interest,  they*  will  continue  to  explain,  until  a 
different  meaning  from  the  only  true  one  is  to  be  induced.  This 
is  peculiarly  the  fact  with  most  of  the  traders  of  the  present  day,  ami 
Jesuits  are  more  plentiful  now  than  when  the  order  was  in  existence. 

Respectfully, 

A.  B.  MEAD. 



Custom-House,  Philadelphia,  October  24,  1839. 
Sir  :  Since  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  30th  ultimo,  the  moiety  of 
the  nett  proceeds  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  goods  therein  referred  to  has 
been  placed  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  Siates,  by  ihe 
i  direction  of  the  First  Comptroller.  The  other  moiety  is  retained  subject 
to  judicial  investigation  and  decision,  if  you  deem  them  expedient,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  respective  rights  of  those  claiming  an  interest  in  the  same. 

Very  respectfully, 

GEO.  WOLF. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collect  or )  8{C. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  24,  1839. 

Sir:  You  will  see  in  the  papers  some  accounts  of  a  meeting  that  has 
been  held  for  the  two  last  evenings  by  the  merchants,  on  the  subject  of 
our  business  affairs.  The  banks  will  not  change  their  course,  and  cannot 
be  broken.    The  merchants,  to  a  great  extent,  1  am  afraid,  must  suspend. 

We  had  but  about  $1,300  due  to  the  custom-house  to-day,  and  there- 
fore I  have  not  seen  many  persons,  to  ascertain  how  seveie  the  pressure 
has  been  ;  but  it  is  undoubtedly  severe.  1  have  not  yet  heard  of  any 
failures  to-day  that  can  be  vouched  for,  though  it  is  said  some  French 
houses  have  faltered  and  their  fate  is  to  be  decided  by  what  may  grow 
out  of  the  meeting  this  evening. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  oj  the  Treasury. 
20* 


492 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  October  25,  1839. 
Sir:  You  will  see  by  the  papers  the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  of 
merchants  last  evening,  and  some  things  seem  to  have  been  said  that 
ought  to  have  been  omitted;  but  I  do  not  think  that  any  essential  harm  can 
result  from  it.  The  banks,  agreeably  to  the  request  of  the  meeting,  held 
a  convention  this  afternoon,' to  respond  on  their  part.  The  banks  will  not 
move  from  their  ground,  and  it  is  not  in  the  power  of  any  one  to  break 
them  ;  but  it  is  very  desirable  that  the  merchants  should  be  assisted  in  this 
crisis,  if  there  is  power  to  do  it,  and  1  verily  believe  the  banks  can  extend 
with  safety,  and  that  they  gradually  will.  The  bonds  due  to-day  were  all 
paid  but  two,  and  they  will  be  in  the  morning. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  October  25,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  request  that,  out  of  the  funds  in  your  hands  to  the  credit 
of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  you  will  place  $80,000  with  the 
Manhattan  Company,  in  special  deposite  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer,  and 
transmit  the  certificate  of  the  cashier  of  that  institution  showing  the  de- 
posite has  been  made. 

This  is  required  to  be  done  for  the  purpose  of  aid  in  redeeming  Trea- 
sury notes. 

Respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.  Collector. 


New  York,  October  27,  1839. 

Sir  :  The  meeting  of  merchants  went  off  very  well  last  evening.  A 
disposition  was  exhibited  on  the  part  of  some  agitators  to  enlarge  the  ex- 
citement, but  it  did  not  succeed. 

In  the  hurry  of  getting  off  my  letters  yesterday,  1  omitted  to  state  to 
you  that  I  thought,  in  making  your  arrangements  and  estimates  for  means 
to  meet  the  calls  upon  the  Treasury,  you  should  take  into  consideration 
the  great  probability  of  veiy  large  exports  of  goods  for  drawbacks.  In 
addition  to  the  goods  on  which  duty  has  been  paid,  the  public  stores  are 
full;  and  if  the  season  for  sales  was  not  principally  over,  the  general  ab- 
sence of  confidence  and  the  difficulty  of  raising  money  would  tend  to  stop 
all  sales,  and  therefore  vast  amounts  will  be  exposed  as  a  means  of  rais- 
ing money,  as  well  as  affording  a  small  profit  in  the  transaction,  if  the  im- 
portation of  the  same  article  is  again  made,  by  reason  of  the  reduction 
that  takes  place  on  the  3lst  of  December  next. 

From  present  appearances,  and  from  what  I  have  heard,  I  am  inclined 
to  think  that  this  course  will  be  adopted  to  a  considerable  extent,  and  it 
may  affect  materially  the  means  of  the  Department  to  meet  its  engage- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


493 


loents;  and  it  might,  therefore,  be  expedient  to  postpone  the  redemption  of 
Treasury  notes  to  the  longest  period  practicable. 

I  send  you  the  Sunday  Morning  News,  giving  an  account  of  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  meeting  of  last  evening. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House  New  York,  October  29,  1339. 
Sir:  We  received  to-day  another  $10,000  Treasury  note,  payable  to 
Phoenix  Bank  of  Hartford.    Tbey  had  the  precaution  (certainly  a  very 
commendable  prudence)  to  endorse  it  without  recourse. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  oj  the  Treasury. 

P.  S.  We  have  taken  no  more  of  these  notes.  We  have  in  all  $35,000 
this  week,  which  exhausts  your  available  funds. 

J.  HOYT. 


.  Treasury  Department,  October  31,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  29th  in- 
stant, as  to  the  payment  of  a  Treasury  note  ($10,000)  issued  to  the  Phce- 
uix  Bank  of  Hartford. 

I  have  remonstrated  with  that  bank  on  the  subject  of  parting  with  the 
Treasury  notes  issued  under  an  express  stipulation  to  hold  them,  but 
it  seems  without  effect.  They  have  not  many  more.  Neither  this  bank  nor 
its  assignees  deserve  any  peculiar  facilities  in  carrying  out  this  violation 
of  a  positive  agreement. 

I  a-m,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  Ihe  Treasury, 

j.  Hoyt,  Collector. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  October  31,  1839. 
Sir  :  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  having  given  me  the  indemnity  1 
required  for  paying  the  protest  fund  into  the  Treasury,  I  have  to  inform 
you  of  the  same,  and  that  1  consider  the  interest  on  the  amount  appear- 
ing on  the  statement  filed  with  your  bank  on  the  20th  instant  ceases  this 
day. 

The  interest  due  you  can  compute  at  your  leisure,  and  adjust  the  same, 

Respectfully, 
•  J.  HOYT. 

K.  Withers,  Esq.,  Cashier,  fyc.  New  York. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  4,  1839. 
Sir:  I  have  received  a  letter  from  the  deputy  naval  officer,  in  answer 
to  a  communication  I  addressed  you  this  morning  on  the  subject  of  a  per- 
mit tor  the  passengers'  baggage  by  the  Great  Western.  It  is  not  deemed 
satisfactory  ;  and,  to  the  end  that  the  public  business  may  be  transacted  as 
it  should  be  done,  I  will  take  occasion  to  lay  the  matter  befoie  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  for  his  action  thereon. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  S.  Coe,  Esq.,  Naval  Officer. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  4,  1S30. 

Sip:  The  enclosed  permit  has  been  returned  to  this  office  by  the  a£e:,c 
of  the  Great  Western,  stating  that  you  had  refused  your  signature  to  it. 

I  have  to  request  that  I  may  be  informed,  in  writing,  the  reason  of  your 
withholding  such  signature. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Wm.  S.  Coe,  Esq.,  Naval  Officer. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  4,  1839. 

Sir  :  I  have  heretofore  informed  you  that  I  was  not  in  the  habit  of  for- 
mally reporting  to  you  the  small  seizures  made  by  the  night  watch,  but 
when  enough  was  collected  to  justify  a  proceeding,  so  as  not  to  bring  the 
United  States  in  debt,  I  sent  them  to  the  district  attorney,  and  had  them 
si[  included  in  one  information,  fn  pursuance  of  this  practice,  I  reported 
t<9  the  district  attorney,  on  the  6th  of  August,  a  case  of  the  kind;  a  copy 
•of  the  letter  I  now  send  you. 

The  first  two  bales  I  reported  to  you,  with  other  seizures  on  the  same 
day.  It  turned  out  afterwards  that  a  defence  was  to  be  made  to  these 
bales,  and  therefore  they  were  not  included  in  the  information  ieferred 
£o.  And  it  also  afterwards  turned  out  that  the  cases  H.  W.  62  i  and  622 
were  not  forfeited,  and  they  were  released  for  causes  stated  in  a  letter 
from  the  district  attorney — a  copy  of  which  I  now  send  you,  under  date  of 
(he  18th  of  September  last. 

Upon  this  statement  of  the  case,  it  so  happened,  I  am  very  sorry  to  say, 
there  was  not  enough  left  to  be  covered  by  the  information  to  pay  ex- 
penses, as  appears  by  the  amounts  this  day  rendered  by  the  clerk  of 
the  court,  and  I  was  therefore  compelled  to  pay  a  portion  of  the  costs,  which 
E  did  this  day. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Esq., 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


495 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  5,  1S39. 

Sir:  i  send  you  a  copy  of  a  letter  I  addressed  to  George  Wolf,  the 
collector  at  your  city,  under  date  of  30th  September  last,  and  also  a  copy 
of  a  letter  from  George  Wolf  to  me,  under  date  of  24th  October,  by 
which  you  will  understand  that  we  are  at  variance  on  a  matter  of  law, 
which  it  is  desirable  to  adjust  in  the  most  amicable  and  friendly  manner 
the  notice  of  the  case  will  admit  of,  with  reference  to  the  rights  and  in- 
terests of  those  we  respectfully  represent.  I  therefore  desire  the  benefit 
of  your  professional  services  in  the  premises. 

1  do  not  know  the  amount  in  controversy,  but  the  Governor  will  inform 
you.  It  is  the  principle  that  must  be  settled;  the  amount  in  controversy 
is  of  no  moment. 

The  action  must  be  in  such  a  form  and  in  such  a  tribunal  as  will  enable 
us  to  get  the  case  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  at  as  early 
a  day  as  may  be  practicable. 

I  presume  the  suit  must  be  commenced  in  my  name,  but  the  amount  I 
think  is  not  large  enough — that  is,  the  portionbelonging  to  me — to  be  able 
to  take  it  up  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States;  and,  as  consent 
■will  not  give  jurisdiction,  you  can  only,  as  I  see,  make  a  case,  and  state 
the  claim  at  a  sufficiently  large  sum  to  effect  the  object.  I  will,  at  this 
stage  of  the  case,  omit  to  go  more  at  large.  You  will  let'me  know  the 
appropriate  fee  to  be  sent  to  you,  when  it  will  be  forwarded.  I  would  be 
glad  to  hear  from  you. 

Yours,  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  K.  Kane,  Esq., 

Counsellor  at  Law,  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  6,  1839. 

Sir  :  We  have  had  a  very  heavy  day  to-day, and,  considering  the  times., 
the  bonds  have  been  very  well  met.  There  are  twenty-six  lying  over, 
but  every  one  of  them  will  be  paid  no  doubt  in  the  morning.  The  num- 
ber payable  were  306.  Among  others,  was  one  oil  bond — that  is,  a  bond 
i^iven  lor-  duties  on  oil — which  is  to  be  refunded  under  the  circular  issued 
by  you  some  time  ago.  The  papers  are  now  in  a  course  of  preparation  tc 
obtain  the  remission;  and  I  did  not  think,  under  these  circumstances,  con- 
sidering the  great  pressure  for  money,  that  I  had  the  moral  right  to  re- 
quire the  payment  of  it,  or  to  put  it  in  suit. 

Though  the  Treasury  is  poor,  the  commissioners  under  the  u  fire  law  r! 
are  endeavoring  to  aid  the  merchants  all  they  can,  by  getting  through  with 
as  many  cases  as  the}'  can,  though  the  commissioners  have  but  very  little 
time  to  devote  to  that  duty. 

We  shall,  undoubtedly,  dispose  of  a  good  many  cases  in  the  course  of 
the  season,  and,  in  your  financial  arrangements,  no  doubt  you  will  bear  it 
in  mind. 

I  do  not  hear-  of  any  failures  to-day. 

1  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


496 


Eep.  No.  669. 


Treasury  Department, 
Office  of  the  Solicitor,  November  6,  1839. 

Sir:  I  had  the  horror  to  receive  your  letter  of  the  4th  instant,  encios-  i 
ing  that  of  the  collector  of  JNew  York,  dated  the  1st  instant,  and  1  have  JI 
consulted  with  the  Attorney  General  in  relation  to  it. 

In  our  letter  of  the  28th  October,  stating  that  the  amount  ascertained,  j 
on  a  final  judgment  in  the  cases  therein  referred  to  ought  to  be  refunded,  1 
it  was  intended  to  include  the  costs  incurred  by  and  payable  to  the  plain* 
tiff  and  taxed  by  the  court — ihey  being  considered  as  part  of  the  judgment,  I 

As  to  the  costs  and  expenses  incurred  by  the  collector  in  defending 
such  suits,  it  is  proper  that  they  should  be  allowed  in  the  settlement  of  his  | 
accounts,  in  the  same  manner  as  in  other  suits  connected  with  the  revenue 
and  paid  by  the  collector.    Should  it  be  deemed  advisable  at  any  time  to 
employ  any  other  counsel  than  the  district  attorney,  or  should  any  com-  ; 
pensation  other  than  the  fees  and  allowances  specifically  provided  by  raw 
be  thought  proper,  it  will  be  the  duty  of  the  collector  to  submit  it  to  ihe 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  for  his  approbation;  and,  in  that  and  all  similar  i 
cases,  that  approbation  must  be  his  voucher  for  its  payment.    The  letter  of  • 
the  collector  is  herewith  returned. 

Respectfully, 

H.  D.  GILPIN, 
Solicitor  of  the  Treasury. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  6,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  several  letters  of  the  10th  and  25th  September  and 
17th  October  last. 

In  reference  to  your  claim  in  the  case  of  S.  R.  Wood,  alluded  to  in  your 
letter  of  the  10th  September,  I  have  to  state  that  there  is  an  informer  on 
this  side  the  water.  The  suit  against  Wood  was  commenced  early  in  Sep- 
tember, 1838,  and  your  letter  referring  to  the  case  bears  date  the  20th  o 
that  month,  and  was  received  by  me  the  16th  of  October,  by  which  you 
will  perceive  that  the  person  on  this  side  has  a  prior  right  over  you. 

I  wrote  you  on  the  20th  of  October  last,  say  1838,  that  we  had  many  other 
persons  situated  as  Mr.  Wood  was;  and  Mr.  Broadbent,  the  person  named 
in  your  letter  of  the  17th  of  October  last,  is  one  of  the  persons.  We  have 
some  of  his  goods  under  seizure,  and  have  had  writs  out  against  him  for  a 
long  time. 

He  left  this  city  last  June,  in  the  Great  Western,  the  day  after  the  trial 
of  Wood  was  completed.  Mr.  Bottomley's  goods,  referred  to  by  you, 
were  seized  on  the  23d  of  April,  1838;  and,  consequently,  the  information 
in  your  letter  of  the  31st  of  May,  1838,  did  not  contain  the  information 
on  which  our  proceedings  were  predicated,  and,  moreover,  there  was  a 
person  claimed  to  be  an  informer  on  this  side. 

In  your  letter  of  the  25th  of  September,  which  reached  me  yesterday, 
you  state  a  circumstance  which  undoubtedly  was  connected  with  an  in- 
tended fraud  on  the  revenue — I  allude  to  the  presentation  of  invoices  by 
John  Bradbury,  William  Piatt,  Francis  f.  Buckley,  William  K.  Sehofield; 


Rep.  No.  669. 


49? 


tout  you  omitted  one  important  particular — that  is,  the  marks  and  numbers 
of  the  cases  represented  by  the  invoices.  If  you  can  ascertain  this,  we 
can  find  the  goods,  and  with  them  no  doubt  the  evidence  of  the  fraud. 
The  fact  is,  no  doubt,  that  the  goods  have  been  in  store  for  some  time;  but 
they  dare  not  enter  them  on  the  invoices  which  came  out  with  them,  and 
therefore  they  send  back  and  get  fresh  invoices.  This  was  the  case  with 
Bottomley,  as  I  wrote  you  August  15,  1838. 

1  hope  you  will  be  able  to  send  me  the  marks  and  numbers,  or  the  ship 
by  which  the  goods  came  ;  if  so,  it  is  a  case  for  you  I  have  no  doubt. 

1  notice  particularly  what*  you  say  in  relation  to  commissions.  I  have 
sent  a  copy  of  your  letter  to  the  district  attorney,  and  requested  him  to 
make  the  arrangement. 

We  have  now  notices  for  several  commissions  which  will  go  out  by  the 
Great  Western,  and  I  shall  make  the  effort  to  get  your  name  in  the  com- 
mission.   I  shall  write  you  by  that  vessel. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Francis  B.  Ogden, 

U.  S.  Consul,  Liverpool. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  6,  1839. 

Sir  :  On  the  other  side  1  hand  you  a  memorandum  of  the  United  States 
district  attorney,  in  relation  to  the  goods  referred  to  in  your  letter  of  the 
18th  ultimo,  by  which  you  will  be  enabled  to  get  at  the  information  re- 
quired in  your  letter. 

I  thank  you  for  this  renewed  proof  of  your  vigilance  in  protecting  the 
interests  of  the  United  States. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Thomas  Dennison,  Esq., 

Consul  of  the  United  States,  Bristol. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  November  8,  1839. 

Sir  :  Do  not  fail  to  put  the  case  of  Harvey  &  Slagg  in  a  position  for 
a  new  trial.  Several  merchants  have  been  to  me,  who  are  perfectly  out- 
rageous at  such  a  violation  of  all  law  and  sense. 

I  think  I  could  safely  swear  to  newly  discovered  testimony,  so  as  to  get 
a  new  trial  on  that  ground.  Mr.  Russel  has  stated  some  facts  to  me  that 
4ire  new.    Think  of  this  point. 

I  am  so  mortified  and  upset  at  the  result.  I  will  leave  no  stone  unturn- 
ed to  punish  the  party  who  would  attempt  to  overturn  all  law  and  morals. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  November  8,  1839. 
Sir  :  It  seems  to  me  we  never  can  get  along  with  the  public  business, 
so  as  to  carry  out  the  intentions  of  Congress,  without  an  act  explanatory 
of  the  4th  section  of  the  act  of  1833. 


498 


Rep.  No.  669. 


I  am  aware  that  it  is  a  troublesome  question  to  touch;  but  such  is  the  I 
absurdity,  or  something  worse,  of  the  decisions  of  the  judges  and  jurors, 1 
that  we  have  nothing  but  one  scene  of  confusion,  and  a  constant  effort  on 
the  part  of  the  designing  to  evade  what  we  suppose  to  be  the  plain  im- 
port of  the  act  of  Congress.    A  case  of  this  kind  was  tried  yesterday.  \ 
Messrs.  Harvey  &  Slagg,  on  the  4th  of  June,  entered  four  packages  of  1 
goods  which  they  called  "  Orleans  cloth,"  "  worsted  free."    It  appeared, 
on  examination,  that  they  were  cotton  and  worsted;  and  they  were  seized  . 
as  forfeited  by  the  14th  section  of  the  act  of  14th  July,  1832.    The  mer- 
chants who  have  fairly  paid  duty  on  that  species  of  goods  had  made  com- 
plaints that  a  vast  amount  of  cotton  and  worsted  goods  were  entered  freer 
and  were  by  some  means  got  through  the  custom-house  undiscovered;  and 
3  considered  the  best  way  to  break  up  the  practice  was  to  make  an  ex- 
ample and  seize  the  goods. 

The  cause  was  tried  yesterday,  and  the  goods  were  acquitted.  The 
trial  was  published  in  the  morning  papers,  and  a  claim  has  been  made  this 
morning  to  enter  the  like  goods  free.  They  were  acquitted  not  upon 
proof,  but  upon  the  judge's  charge  and  the  liberal  feeling  of  a  jury 
who  seem  to  have  paid  the  same  regard  to  their  oaths  that  the  importer 
in  question  did  to  his,  when  he  swore  that  he  was  the  owner  of  the  goods 
while  in  fact  they  were  consigned  to  him  for  sale. 

In  reference  to  the  jury,  I  have  had  occasion  heretofore,  if  I  recollect 
aright,  to  speak  of  the  manner  in  which  jurors  are  summoned  in  the  courts 
of  the  United  States,  in  this  district.  They  are  picked  up  by  the  marshal 
without  any  one  to  control  him.  I  have  now  before  me  the  panel  of  the 
present  term  of  the  district  couit;  and  I  do  not  think  that  there  can,  by 
any  possibility,  be  selected  twelve  men  from  it  who  would,  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, render  a  verdict  for  the  United  States. 

We  tried  another  cause  to-day  with  a  like  result. 

I  cannot  conscientiously  change  my  course  of  action  in  these  matters, 
and  therefore  shall  not;  and  the  consequence  must  necessarily  be  that  the 
United  States  will  have  large  bills  of  costs  to  pay,  in  each  of  which,  whether 
the  goods  are  condemned  or  acquitted,  the  fees  are  about  the  same. 

Considering  the  immense  litigation  we  have  at  various  ports,  and  the 
contrariety  of  decisions,  I  confess  I  cannot  see  how  you  are  to  avoid,  in 
your  annual  report,  asking  for  an  explanatory  law.  It  is  alike  due  to 
the  fair  merchant,  the  revenue,  and  the  officers  of  the  Government  whose 
duty  it  is  to  execute  the  law. 

The  accumulation  of  suits  against  me,  and  the  difficulty  the  Department 
has  in  giving  me  the  proper  indemnity,  forms  another  reason  for  taking 
measures  to  avoid  the  difficulty. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  November  7,  1839. 
Sir:  Your  letter  of  the  1st  instant  was  duly  received,  respecting  the 
payment  of  the  costs  and  expenses  in  the  suits  pending  against  you  for 
the  recovery  of  the  excess  of  duties  charged  on  merchandise,  and  was  re- 
ferred to  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury,  with  instructions  to  advise  with 


Rep.  No.  669. 


499 


the  Attorney  General,  and  report  to  me  their  views  and  recommendations 
on  the  subject. 

I  now  enclose  a  copy  of  the  Solicitor's  report,  and  have  to  remark  that  I 
shall  be  happy  to  conform  to  his  recommendation  in  the  matter  stated 
therein. 

Respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Collector. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  November  9,  1839. 
Sir:  I  return  you  the  notice  of  Morton's  for  commission  in  the  case  o-f 
7  bales  and  9  bales  woollens  claimed  by  Samuel  Bradbury.  It  would  not 
answer  at  all  to  have  Giles  Shaw,  or  any  other  man  by  that  name,  to  act 
as  commissioner.  I  would  take  Whitehead  as  the  man,  though  I  have  no 
particular  choice  as  to  the  three  names  mentioned  in  your  letter  of  the  5th 
instant. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  15,  1839. 
Sir:  I  enclose  duplicate  bills  of  the  clerk  of  the  district  couit,  in  the 
case  of  Bottomley,  which  I  have  paid  for  you,  ($14  85.) 

Please  hand  them  to  your  marshal,  and  receive  the  amount  from  him. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

George  Bancroft,  Collector,  Boston. 

P.  S.  Please  to  pay  commissioner  for  closing  the  accounts  of  the  Boston 
Free  Press  Company  $7  for  me,  for  subscription  to  Advocate  to  1st  Jan- 
uary, 1839. 


Custom -House,  New  York,  November  16,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  this  day  transferred  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer 
of  the  United  States,  for  the  receipts  of  this  week,  ending  this  day,  the 
sum  of  $320,000.  This  includes  the  protest  fund  which  was  paid  over 
this  week,  and  accounts  for  the  amount  being  so  large.  We  have  had 
large  amounts  paid  to-day  on  bonds,  and  they  have  been  uncommonly 
well  met,  considering  the  state  of  the  money  market.  The  steamer  sail- 
ed to-day.  but  took  no  specie.  Bills  advanced  about  2  per  cent.,  and  left 
off  as  1  understood  at  8  per  cent,  premium,  but  the  transactions  were  not 
very  large.    We  expect  the  British  Queen  to-morrow. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Trcusuri;. 


£00 


Hep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  23,  1839-  il 
Sir  :  I  have  this  day  transferred  to  the  separate  credit  of  the  Treasurer* 
of  the  United  States,  for  the  receipts  of  the  week  ending  this  day,  tWij 
sum  of  $200,000.    We  have  had  rather  a  dull  week,  which  we  are  no\  \ 
sorry  to  see,  for  it  gives  us  the  opportunity  to  review  a  little  what  we  have 
heretofore  done,  and  to  correct  errors  that  must  necessarily  be  made  in 
the  amount  of  business  we  have  done  this  year. 

Our  business  community  stood  much  better  than  could  have  been  anti-J 
cipated.  The  banks  are  strong,  and  in  fact  have  more  specie  than  is  want-  1 
ed  for  safety  or  profit,  and  they  are  gradually  enlarging  the  time  of  dis- 
counts; and  I  think  they  will  be  able  to  continue  this  course,  as  the  new« 
crop  that  will  go  forward  in  all  due  time  will  afford  as  much,  in  the  shape 
of  remittance,  as  will  be  required  for  the  payment  of  goods,  and  the  in- 
terest and  the  principal  of  the  State  debt  held  abroad  is  in  the  course  of 
being  paid  off  by  the  newspapers  in  a  certain  interest. 

The  Queen  is  not  yet  arrived,  and  the  speculations  are  various  as  to  the 
cause  therefor. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  November  25,  1839. 
Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  22d  instant,  directing  me  to  deposite 
$80,000  in  the  Manhattan  Company  to  the  special  credit  of  the  Trea- 
surer, which  amount  I  have  this  day  deposited,  and  charged  to  his  ac- 
count, and  transmitted  the  usual  receipt  to  him. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  November  26,  1839. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  23d  instant,  in  relation  to  the  counsel 
fee  in  the  case  against  me  personally  for  the  recovery  back  of  duties  paid 
under  protest,  in  which  you  say  that  "  no  difficulty  exists  in  paying  a  suit- 
able compensation  to  any  other  counsel,  and  all  other  reasonable  costs." 
This  is  all  very  proper,  as  no  one  ever  supposed  that  any  "  compensation 
or  costs"  other  than  those  which  were  "  suitable  and  reasonable"  would 
be  charged.  If  they  had  been,«»y  approbation  would  not  have  been  given 
to  them. 

Under  this  understanding  of  the  matter,  I  have  passed  to  the  credit  of  the 
United  States  this  day,  on  the  books  of  this  office,  the  sum  of  $2,108  42, 
the  same  sum  received  from  the  Bank  of  the  State  of  New  York  for  in- 
terest on  the  protest  fund,  which  makes  the  sum  of  $5,511  98  for  interest, 
which  the  United  States  have  received  on  this  fund,  which  I  think  is  more 


Rep.  No.  669. 


501 


than  the  litigation  will  cost ;  but  whether  it  is  or  not,  I  trust  the  First  Au- 
ditor will  not  consider  that  I  am  to  lose  it. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  November  23,  1839. 
Sir:  Mr.  George  A.  Wasson,  an  officer  in  this  department,  has  shown 
me  a  note,  received  from  you  this  morning,  concerning  some  goods  taken 
by  him,  by  my  directions,  from  the  store  of  Henry  Dixon,  No.  49  Cedar 
street. 

These  goods  were  taken  from  the  public  store  on  the  21st  instant,  upon 
an  entry  sworn  to  by  a  person  who  had  no  competent  authority  to  repre- 
sent Mr.  Dixon,  the  alleged  owner,  and  upon  papers  that  wore  a  suspi- 
cious appearance.  The  invoice,  or  the  paper  called  an  invoice,  purports 
to  be  dated  at  Morley  the  same  day  that  the  bill  of  lading  bears  date  at 
Liverpool;  and  there  are  other  circumstances  attending  the  affair  equally 
suspicious. 

After  I  had  ordered  the  goods  back  to  the  store,  I  sent  for  the  person 
who  purported  to  act  as  the  attorney  for  Mr.  Dixon,  to  ask  of  him  some 
explanation,  with  the  view  of  saving  any  trouble  or  expense  in  the  mat- 
ter; and  he  returned  such  a  message  as  tended  to  increase  my  suspicions 
of  the  integrity  of  the  transaction,  and  I  therefore  directed  Mr.  Wasson  to 
go  and  take  the  goods,  to  the  end  that  all  of  them  'might  be  examined. 
They  have  been  so  examined  and  found  to  be  correct,  and  1  have  direct- 
ed Mr.  Wasson  to  send  them  back  to  the  store  from  which  they  were 
taken.  I  address  you  this  letter  in  answer  to  one  from  you  to  Mr.  Was- 
son. 


Respectfully, 


Jon.  Miller,  Esq.,  Counsellor  at  Law. 


J.  HOYT,  Collector. 


Custom- House,  New  York, 
Auditor's  Office,  November  30,  1839. 
Sir:  The  letter  of  E.  &  C.  G.  Feter,  on  the  subject  of  certain  bonds 
of  theirs,  having  been  by  you  referred  to  me,  I  have  respectfully  to  re- 
port that,  upon  examination  of  the  books  of  this  office,  I  find  that  the 
bonds  in  question,  to  wit : 

Bond  due  December  8,1837       ....  $1,179 


Bond  due  December  10,  1837 
Bond  due  December  19,  1837 


516 

-  -  -  -  1,495 

are  standing  open  as  unpaid. 

It  appears,  further,  that  these  bonds  form  part  of  the  large  amount  of 
missing  bonds  charged  to  Mr.  Swartwout,  upon  the  closing  of  his  accounts, 
after  his  retirement  from  office.  They  are  not,  however,  contained  in 
Mr.  Phillips's  list,  which  was  sent  to  the  Treasury  at  the  time  of  the  in- 


502  Rep.  No.  669. 

vestigation  of  Mr.  Swartwout's  accounts  by  the  Comptroller  and  the  So- 
licitor. 

After  the  final  accounts  of  Mr.  Swartwout  had  been  made  up  and  trans- 
mitted to  the  Treasury,  agreeably  to  the  direction  of  those  officers,  Mr. 
Underwood,  of  the  First  Auditor's  Office,  who  had  come  from  Washing- 
ton with  those  gentlemen,  recommended  that  a  supplemental  account  of  all 
missing  bonds  be  made  out  and  forwarded  to  the  First  Auditor,  as  a  means  n 
of  aiding  his  office  in  the  examination  of  Mr.  Swartwout's  bond  account. 
This  was  accordingly  done,  and  in  that  account  will  be  found  the  three1 
bonds  in  que;>tion. 

I  remain,  &c. 

J.  A.  FLEMING,  Auditor. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Extract  of  a  letter  from  J.  Hoyt  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  dated 
Custom- House,  New  York,  December  2,  1839. 

In  my  estimate  for  the  receipts  of  next  year,  forwarded  on  the  4th  of! 
November,  I  estimated  that  we  should  take  in  that  month  $500,000  in 
bonds,  by  which  you  will  perceive  that  I  fall  short  of  the  estimate 
$112,500,  which  1  must  admit  is  a  bad  beginning  for  the  accuracy  of  myj 
views;  but,  on  a  revision  of  the  estimate  lor  next  year,  1  am  unwilling  to 
reduce  it. 

I  stated,  in  my  letter  giving  the  estimate,  that  but  few  orders  had  gone 
out  for  goods;  and  while  the  merchants  all  tell  this,  some  of  them  quietly 
send  out  a  partner  to  look  after  the  matter,  and  probably  to  purchase,  and 
in  this  way  the  attempt  is  made  to  humbug  (to  use  a  classical  expression) 
each  other,  and  give  impressions  to  me  not  warranted  by  the  true  state  of 
the  case.  Several  persons  of  this  kind  go  out  to-day  in  the  steamer  and 
packets,  which  1  should  not  have  now  known  if  the  passports  had  not 
passed  through  my  hands. 

1  am,  for  these  and  other  reasons,  inclined  to  believe  that  we  shall  have 
rather  larger  importations  than  is  generally  believed.  The  country  is 
able  to  consume,  and  there  is  no  very  large  stock  of  goods  on  hand.  Wi 
shall  have  larger  importations  from  France,  in  proportion,  than  from  Eng- 
land. Many  of  the  artisans,  educated  in  the  latter  country,  are  retreating 
to  the  former,  with  their  manufacturing  establishments,  because  living  is 
so  much  cheaper  in  France,  and  latterly  capital  also;  and  the  impression 
is  fast  gaining  ground  that  England  has  seen  her  best  days,  and  hence  the 
continued  complaints  that  there  is  no  demand  for  yarns  for  the  continent. 

Our  merchants,  who  are  watching  for  favorable  opportunities  to  go  into 
operations  in  cotton,  are  looking  with  great  interest  on  this  view  of  the 
case,  materially  affecting  the  value  of  the  raw  material  in  England  ;  but 
whether  manufactured  in  France  or  England,  it  does  not  alter  the  revenue 
for  us,  if  all  proper  diligence  is  exercised  to  counteract  the  superior  inge- 
nuity of  the  French  in  concealing  the  material  of  which  the  manufacture 
is  made. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Hep.  No.  669. 


503 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  2,  1S39. 
Gentlemen  :  1  received  in  due  course  your  letter  of  the  29th  of  Oc- 
tober, and  notice  what  you  say  in  relation  to  the  execution  of  commissions 
from  this  country . 

Annexed  is  a  list  of  commissions,  from  No.  1  to  No.  12  inclusive,  that 
<jo  out  by  the  Queen  to-day,  and  in  all  of  which  there  is  a  stipulation  that 
counsel  of  both  parties  may  appear  before  the  commission  to  see  that  pro- 
per testimony  is  admitted,  and  that  the  same  is  correctly  taken  down. 
This  arrangement  has  been  entered  into  to  save  the  expense  of  more  than 
one  commission. 

Your  suggestion  in  relation  to  attaching  samples  of  the  cloth  to  the  com- 
missions or  interrogatories  was  a  very  good  one,  but,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  it 
has  not  been  adopted  by  the  court. 

There  is  but  this  distinction  in  the  cases,  a  list  of  which  I  now  send  you, 
viz  : 

1  St.  In  case  the  goods  have  been  purchased  by  the  exporter  to  this  coun- 
try, the  actual  cost  of  the  goods  must  appear  on  the  invoice. 

2d.  In  case  they  are  sent  out  by  the  manufacturer,  then  they  must  be  in- 
voiced at  the  fair  market  value  at  the  place  of  exportation. 

In  cases  No,  1,  3,  and  5,  the  goods  were  consigned  to  houses  here  by 
the  manufacturers. 

In  cases  No.  2  and  11,  part  were  purchased  and  part  manufactuied  by 
the  consignors. 

In  cases  No.  6, 7,  8,  9, 10,  and  1 1 ,  they  purport  to  have  been  purchased  by 
the  consignors.  But  we  have  no  faith  in  the  integrity  of  the  invoices,  and 
we  suppose  they  are  made  up  with  the  view  of  defrauding  the  revenue. 

The  v*  Yorkshiremen,"  as  they  are  familiarly  called  here,  and  especial- 
ly those  from  Saddleworth,  have  been  linked  together  for  years  in  exten- 
sive efforts  to  practise  impositions  upon  us;  and  they  have  been  in  the 
habit,  for  years,  of  invoicing  goods  to  each  other  at  prices  immensely  be- 
low their  value. 

The  following  is  a  list  of  the  names  we  suppose  to  have  been  engaged 
in  this  business : 


No.  1 .  John  Harris 

No.  2.  John  Taylor,  jr. 

No.  3.  Plait  &  Duncan 

No.  4.  William  Bottom  ley 


No.  17.  James  Wood, jr. 
No.  18.  James  Mallabin 
No.  19.  Joseph  Broadbent 
No.  20.  John  Schofield 


No.    5.  W.  Broadbent  No.  21.  Henry  Dixon 


No.    G.  George  Shaw 
No.    7.  Samuel  Bradbury 
No.    8.  Thomas  Wood 
No.    9.  Samuel  R.  VYood 
No.  10.  J.  Watson  &  Co. 
No.  11.  Charles  Clifton 
No.  12.  Samuel  Shaw 
No.  13.  Charles  Keuworthv 
No.  14.  W.H.Linsley 
No.  15.  James  Wood,  sr. 
No.  16.  John  Piatt 


No.  22.  Buckley  Bent 
No.  23.  William  Bent 
No.  24.  Abel  Shaw 
No.  25.  James  Bottomley,  sr. 
No.  26.  James  Bottomley,  jr. 
No.  27.  William  Kenworthy 
No.  28.  John  Bradbury 
No.  29.  James  Kenworthv 
No.  30.  Henry  Buckley 
No.  31.  James  Buckley 


fhe  Nos.  6,  7,  8,  9,  10,  11,  and  12,  are,  as  you  will  perceive,  belong- 


ing to  the  list. 


504 


Eep  No.  669. 


In  No.  12,  the  claimant  is  the  son  of  James  Bottomley,  sr.;  and  he  al- 
leged that  he  purchased  the  goods  of  his  father,  who  is  a  manufacturer, 
and  that  he  paid  his  father  %\  per  cent,  profit  on  manufacturers'  cost — all 
of  which  we  do  not  believe,  but  we  suppose  the  father  is  the  true  owner, 
and  that  the  son  is  a  mere  agent. 

James  Bottomley,  jr.,  was  formerly  here  as  such  agent,  but  he  did  his 
business  in  the  same  form  that  William  now  does  it,  and  he  fled  to  Eng- 
land by  the  way  of  Canada. 

William  Broadbent,  in  No.  7,  is  now  in  England,  and  dare  not  return  to 
this  country. 

James  Buckley,  the  commissioner  named  in  No.  3  and  4,  we  have  no 
confidence  in,  for  we  are  under  the  impression  that  invoices  have  come 
from  him  fraudulently  made  up. 

In  some  of  the  cases  you  will  perceive  no  witnesses  are  named.  Our 
practice  in  this  respect  is  loose,  and  does  not  conform  to  yours. 

The  United  States  have  the  liberty  to  join  in  the  commission,  and  there- 
fore you  would  not  probably  be  entitled  to  call  in  any  witnesses  on  our  part; 
but  if  you  have  reason  to  suppose  the  whole  truth  is  not  elicited,  you  will 
bave  the  goodness  to  apprize  us  w  ith  the  names  of  persons  to  be  examined, 
and  we  will  then  sue  out  a  commission  on  our  part  to  examine  them. 

I  have  now  given  you  a  general  view  of  the  matter,  and  herewith  send 
a  special  letter  authorizing  you  to  appear  as  counsel  for  the  United  States. 
You  said  nothing,  in  your  letter  of  the  29th  October,  on  the  subject  of 
your  fees;  and  I  have  therefore  only  to  repeat  that  Mr.  Ogden,  the  Ame- 
rican consul  at  Liverpool,  will  honor  your  draft  in  this  respect. 

With  great  respect,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
To  Humphreys,  Cunliffe,  &  Chasburn,  Manchester. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  5,  1839. 

Sir  :  In  compliance  with  the  request  contained  in  your  note  of  this  day, 
I  enclose,  herewith,  a  copy  of  my  letter  to  you,  relative  to  the  case  of  De- 
casse,  Meige,  &  Co. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  6,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  the  suit  against  John  Piatt,  I  now  send  you  the  following  entries, 
which  will  enable  you  to  declare  [Omission  in  the  MS.] 

You  will  please  have  the  goodness  to  have  these  papers  preserved  with 
great 


care. 


Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


505 


Collector's  Office,  December  9,  1839. 
Gentlemen  :  1  enclose  you  copies  of  two  letters  from  France,  in  rela- 
tion to  importations  of  blankets.    I  do  not  know  that  they  can  be  of  any 
essential  service,  but  I  deem  it  proper  they  should  be  placed  in  tne  wool- 
lens loft  of  your  department. 

I  also  send  you  copies  of  two  letters  from  Germany  ,  in  relation  to  glass 
ware,  which  it  is  proper  should  go  into  the  hands  of  the  examiners  of  glass. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

To  the  Appraisers  of  New  York. 


Treasury  Department,  December  12,  1839. 
Sir  :  1  wish  you  to  deposite,  specially,  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer^ 
$150,000,  in  the  Manhattan  Bank.    It  is  to  aid  in  the  redemption  of  Trea- 
sury notes. 

Respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  14,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  conformity  to  the  directions  contained  in  your  letter  of  the  12th 
instant,  1  have  this  day  deposited  in  the  Manhattan  Company,  to  the  spe- 
cial credit  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  the  sum  of  $  150,000,  and 
transmitted  the  usual  receipt  to  him. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  L«vi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Collector's  Office, 
New  York,  December  20, 1839. 
Sir:  In  one  of  the  morning  papers  of  this  date,  it  is  alleged  that  you 
have  been  instructed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  bring  a  suit 
against  me  as  a  defaulter. 

The  object  of  this  note  is  to  ask  whether  this  statement  is  true. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

District  Attorney  of  the  United  States. 


506 


Rep.  No.  669. 


United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  December  20,  1839. 
Sir  :  Id  reply  to  your  note  of  this  date,  1  have  to  say  that  I  have  re- 
ceived no  instructions  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  or  any  other 
officer,  to  bring  any  suit  against  you  for  any  cause  whatever. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

B.  F.  BUTLER, 
United  States  Attorney. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Collector's  Office, 
New  York,  December  24,  1839. 
Gentlemen  :  I  have  recently  had  occasion  to  examine  a  variety  of  in- 
voices, and  more  especially  those  that  have  passed  the  woollens  loft  at 
different  periods  for  the  last  two  years,  when  it  appeared  that  Mr.  Trip- 
ler,  the  clerk  of  that  loft,  had  reported  to  you  upon  them,  in  a  large  ma- 
jority of  cases. 

The  second  section  of  the  act  of  1830,  authorizing  the  appointment  of 
assistant  appraisers,  declares  that  they  shall  take  and  subscribe  an  oatli 
diligently  and  faithfully  to  examine  and  inspect  such  goods,  wares,  and 
merchandise,  as  the  principal  appraisers  may  direct,  and  truly  to  report  to 
them,  to  the  best  of  their  knowledge  and  belief,  the  true  value  thereof 
according  to  law,  whereupon  the  principal  appraisers  shall  revise  and 
correct  the  same  as  they  may  judge  proper,  and  report  to  the  collector 
their  decisions  thereon. 

I  think  the  fair  interpretation  of  this  provision  is,  that  the  assistant  ap- 
praisers should  sign  the  report  to  you,  as  written  evidence  of  their  having 
examined  the  goods. 

If  you  concur  in  this  opinion,  I  would  suggest  that  you  call  the  atten- 
tion of  the  assistant  appraisers  to  the  requirements  of  the  act  referred  to. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
To  the  Principal  Appraisers  of  the  port  of  New  York. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  December  28,  1839. 

Sir  :  1  enclose  copies  of  letters  I  received  this  day  from  Mr.  Assistant 
Appraiser  Lounsbury,  in  reply  to  my  letter  to  the  appraisers,  dated  the 
24th  instant,  a  copy  of  which  1  forward  to  you. 

The  one  letter  1  now  send  you  purports  to  be  a  copy  of  one  from  Mr. 
Appraiser  Mead  to  Mr.  Lounsbury. 

i  have  received  no  explanation  from  the  appraisers  for  signing  invoices 
not  reported  upon  by  the  assistants.  It  is  probably  owing  to  the  hurry  of 
business,  and  to  the  wrant  of  a  sufficient  number  of  assistant  appraisers  to  do 
the  business  of  the  port — of  the  truth  of  which  want  there  can  be  no  doubt. 

Respectfui'v, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Eep.  No.  669. 


507 


Collector's  Office, 
Auditor's  Department,  December  28,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  compliance  with  your  note  of  this  morning,  calling  on  me  to 
give  you,  in  writing,  what  I  know  or  have  heard  on  the  subject  of  the  ex- 
amination of  the  weekly  returns  of  this  office  on  the  part  of  the  naval  of- 
ficer, I  have  respectfully  to  state,  that,  on  the  Monday  immediately  after  the 
order  of  the  Commissioner  of  the  Treasury,  requiring  the  naval  officer  to 
sign  our  weekly  returns  of  moneys  received  and  disbursed,  the  clerks  of 
the  naval  officer  called  in  our  office  for  the  returns  to  examine,  that  the 
same  might  be  certified  by  the  naval  officer;  but,  they  finding  that  they 
wTere  unable  to  examine  them  hi  time  for  transmission  to  Washington 
that  day,  and  you  not  being  disposed  to  let  it  lie  over,  it  was  sent  with- 
out the  naval  officer's  signature  ;  but  it  was  afterwards  directed  by  the 
Comptroller,  that,  instead  of  every  week,  the  returns  should  be  certified 
by  the  naval  officer  the  last  week  in  every  month.  It  was  after  the 
change  the  naval  officer  called  in  our  office  to  certify  the  first  return  cer- 
tified by  him,  and  to  my  knowledge  the  only  one.  When  he  called,  the 
package  was  already  sealed  up,  and  Mr.  Fleming  being  absent  at  the  time, 
I  broke  the  seal  and  gave  the  return  to  him,  which  he  certified  ;  since 
which  time  they  have  regularly  called  at  our  office  for  the  returns,  which  a 
short  time  since  they  stopped  for  awhile,  but  have  again  commenced  taking 
it  weekly. 

The  returns  are  always  ready  every  Monday  for  their  examination,  and 
have  never  been  refused  them.  Those  are  all  the  facts  connected  with  the 
case  that  have  fallen  under  my  observation. 

Respectfully, 

W.  P.  HOU,  Asst.  Auditor. 

J.  Hoyt,  Collector. 


Collector's  Office,  December  28,  1839. 
Sir  :  Have  I  ever  stated  to  you  that  the  weekly  returns  of  this  office 
could  not  be  furnished  for  the  naval  officer  to  examine  ?    And  have  yoia 
ever  so  stated  to  any  one? 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

J.  A.  Fleming,  Esq.,  Auditor. 


Auditor's  Office,  December  28,  1839. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  note  of  this  day,  I  have  to  observe  that  you  have 
never  stated  to  me  that  the  weekly  returns  of  the  office  could  not  be  furn- 
ished for  the  naval  officer  to  examine,  nor  have  I  ever  stated  so  to  any 
one,  either  as  coming  from  you  or  as  originating  with  myself. 

Respectfully, 

J.  A.  FLEMING,  Auditor. 

J.  Hoyt,  Collector. 
21* 


508 


Sep.  No.  669. 


New  York,  January  7,  1840. 

Sir  :  Enclosed  you  have  a  copy  of  an  invoice  of  goods  entered  by  me 
in  your  office  in  July  last.  Will  you  please  cause  it  to  be  compared  with 
the  original  in  your  possession,  and  inform  me,  after  such  examination, 
whether  it  is  a  true  copy  ?  And  may  I  ask  of  you  also  to  state  when  the 
entry  of  the  goods  was  made,  the  amount  of  duties  paid,  and  the  numbers 
and  marks  ot  the  packages  ordered  by  you  for  examination.  The  charges 
added  on  the  entry  were  £17  18s.  9c?.,  exclusive  of  the  £2,699  in  which  is 
the  footing  of  the  invoice.  If  I  am  mistaken,  please  correct  it.  I  am  welL 
aware  of  the  pressing  engagements  and  duties  of  your  office,  and  would 
not  have  troubled  you  with  this  request,  had  it  not  been  that  it  is  of  con- 
siderable importance  to  me  to  establish  the  facts  above  inquired  of,  which 
your  statement  will  satisfactorily  do. 

Trusting  that  confidence  in  your  urbanity  is  all  the  apology  required 
for  the  liberty  taken,  I  will  only  add  that  an  answer  at  your  earliest  con- 
venience will  confer  a  favor  on 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  TAYLOR,  Jr. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq., 

Collector  of  the  port  of  New  York. 

P.  S.  The  invoice  above  alluded  to  arrived  per  ship  Independence, 
Capt.  Nye,  from  Liverpool,  entered  1st  July  last.  J.  T.,  Jr. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  January *12,  1840. 

Dear  SrR :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  10th  instant,  in  relation  to  a  re- 
cent decision  in  Baltimore  in  regard  to  the  duty  on  w  orsted  goods ;  and 
vou  inquire  whether  there  u  is  any  considerable  quantity  of  goods  of  that 
character."  . 

The  quantity  of  w  orsted  goods  imported  is  immense,  and  when  I  came 
into  office  most  of  them  were  entered  free  of  duty.  Worsted  shawls  were 
called  "  worsted  stuff  goods,"  under  the  4th  section  of  the  act  of  1833.  I 
now  charge  a  duty  of  50  per  cent.,  and  all  the  importers  pay  the  duty  or 
aive  bonds  for  them  under  protest.  The  course  then  is  to  bring  suits,  and 
call  each  other  as  witnesses  to  swear  that  in  modern  terms  all  worsted 
o-oods  are  44  stuff  goods,"  and  the  court  will  charge  the  jury  that  the  tariff 
must  be  construed  with  reference  to  the  commercial  meaning  of  terms, 
and  the  merchants  are  the  only  people  on  the  face  of  God's  earth  that 
know  what  ^  commercial  terms"  are  ;  and  a  verdict,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
will  be  against  the  Government,  without  the  jury  leaving  their  box.  Ir. 
this  manner  the  tariff  act  has  been  most  grossly  perverted,  and  the  plair. 
intentions  of  Congress  put  substantially  at  defiance.  In  my  judgment 
there  ought  to  be  an  explanatory  law,  for  the  purpose  of  relieving  the  De- 
partment from  the  embarrassments  created  by  various  decisions  that  have 
been  made  by  the  courts  and  juries  under  the  section  of  the  act  before  re- 
ferred to. 

Respectfully. 

J.  HOYT. 

Hon.  Obadiah  Titus,  in  Congress. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


508 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  14,  1840. 
Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  10th  instant,  enclosing,  as  you  state,  a 
copy  of  an  invoice  of  goods,  entered  by  you  in  this  office  in  July  last,  and 
in  a  postscript  you  say  the  importation  was  by  the  ship  Independence,  and 
you  request  me  to  compare  the  same  with  the  original  on  file,  and  to  in- 
form you,  after  the  examination  thereof — 

1.  Whether  it  is  a  true  copy  ; 

2.  When  the  entry  of  the  goods  was  made  ; 

3.  The  amount  of  duties  paid  ; 

4.  The  numbers  and  the  marks  of  the  goods  ordered  for  examination. 
In  answer  to  this  communication,  I  have  to  say — 

1st.  I  have  caused  the  copy  of  the  invoice  enclosed  to  be  compared 
with  the  original  on  file  in  this  office,  and  have  caused  such  alterations  to 
be  made  in  such  copy  as  to  make  it  now  a  true  copy  of  the  original  on  file. 

2d.  It  appears  by  an  entry,  also  on  file,  that  the  goods  referred  to  in 
such  invoice  were  entered  on  the  11th  day  of  July  last. 

3d.  It  also  appears  that  the  duty  was  paid,  viz  :  $5,346  80  on  the  17th 
of  July. 

4th.  It  also  appears  that  only  three  of  the  packages,  viz :  Nos.  53,  57, 
and  69,  were  ordered  for  examination  by  the  deputy  before  whom  the  entrv 
was  sworn  to,  and  that  only  those  numbers  were  examined. 

I  have  now  answered  all  your  inquiries  ;  but  candor  compels  me  to  add, 
that,  at  about  that  period,  circumstances  were  communicated  tome  in  rela- 
tion to  the  form  of  examination  in  the  appraisers'  department  of  those  kind 
of  goods  which,  from  that  time,  failed  to  inspire  me  with  any  great  de- 
gree of  confidence  in  most  cases  in  the  judgment  or  care  with  which  such 
examinations  were  made,  and  which  leads,  as  you  are  already  aware,  to 
a  different  practice  in  the  department ;  and  hence,  all  your  importations 
of  woollens  were,  for  some  time  after,  ordered  for  examination,  and  if  the 
papers  in  relation  to  the  goods  in  question  had  passed  under  my  notice,  all 
of  the  goods  referred  to  would  have  been  ordered  at  that  time,  and  a 
much  more  minute  examination  would  have  been  given  to  them.  I  return 
you  the  copy  of  invoice  enclosed. 

Respectfully,    J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Mr.  John  Taylor,  Jr.,  New  York. 


Copy  of  postscript  of  a  letter  to  Hon.  R.  B.  Rhett,  M.  C,  dated  Custom- 
House,  Neiv  York,  January  16,  1840. 
I  have  this  moment  learned  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  made  a 
communication  to  Congress  on  the  subject  of  the  construction  that  has 
been  put  upon  the  tariff.  I  hope  you  will  look  at  the  question,  as  the 
merchants,  as  jurors  and  witnesses,  make  the  laws,  and  not  Congress. 

J.  HOYT. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  16,  1840. 

EXAMINATION  OF  PAPERS  AT   REQUEST  OF  DISTRICT  ATTORNEY. 

United  States  vs.  Riddle,  claimant. 
There  is  a  fraud  to  begin  with — 

1st.  We  have  not  had  the  owner's  oath  at  all  to  the  invoice.    The  oath 


510 


Eep.  No.  669. 


before  the  consul  at  Bristol  is  the  mere  oath  of  Henry  Wood,  the  shipper, 
which,  by  inadvertence  at  the  custom-house,  was  taken  as  the  owner's 
oath. 

2d.  The  invoice  is  not  signed,  and  does  not  show  who  the  pretended 
owners  are. 

3d.  The  invoice  E  represents  Riddle  as  purchaser,  which  is  not  so ;  he 
is  mere  consignee. 

Perhaps  it  is  intended  to  cancel  the  fraud. 

1st.  It  appears,  by  the  claim,  that  Ezekiel  Edmonds  &  Co.  are  the 
owners  of  the  goods. 

2d.  It  appears,  by  the  interrogatories,  that  Ezekiel  Edmonds  is  one  of 
the  witnesses  proposed  to  be  examined  for  the  claimant,  Mr.  Riddle. 

In  relation  to  all  which,  I  have  to  say  that  I  have  had  the  goods  ap- 
praised by  disinterested  competent  judges,  who  report  that  they  are  in- 
voiced about  20  per  cent,  less  than  value,  and  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to 
repudiate  that  appraisement  unless  upon  testimony  taken  and  exhibited 
according  to  the  prescribed  forms  of  law7.  He  who  would  invoice  less 
than  cost  or  market  value  (and  prima  facie  it  has  been  done  in  this  case) 
would  "  pray  for  the  glory  and  prosperity  of  the  Government  of  the  Uni- 
ted States  "  without  any  especial  sincerity,  if  he  could  get  his  goods  clear 
thereby,  without  erasing  any  material  parts  of  the  prayer,  so  as  to  have  n 
sentence  imperfect,  which  is  done  in  the  petition  in  question. 

I  have  no  faith  in  the  sincerity  of  the  document.  To  depart  from  the 
oidinary  course  in  this  case  would,  in  my  judgment,  set  an  evil  example, 
and  tend  to  an  abandonment  of  the  system  of  reform  which  I  have  made 
up  my  mind  to  persevere  in. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted  to  the  district  attorney. 

I  retain  the  papers. 

J.  HOYT. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  18,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  did  not  get  a  copy  of  your  annual  report,  containing  your  esti- 
mates of  appropriations  for  the  year,  till  yesterday.  1  notice  you  recom- 
mend that$l  18,743  be  given  for  the  new  custom-house  in  this  city,  which 
as  $20,000  less  than  the  commissioners  ask.  As  I  did  not  understand  why 
you  recommended  that  $20,000  should  lie  over  to  another  year,  I  called 
on  the  clerks  of  the  commissioners  (Mr.  Bowne  not  being  in)  and  the 
superintendent  for  a  copy  of  the  estimates  with  the  explanations,  and  have 
it  now  before  me,  from  which  it  appears  that  "  $9S,243  must  be  paid  out 
of  the  appropriation  before  the  1st  of  May  next,"  which  would  leave  only 
$22,500  excess  to  complete  the  work.  With  great  respect,  I  beg  to  re- 
mark, that  I  think  it  false  economy  to  attempt  to  stint  us  in  the  sum  neces- 
sary to  finish  this  most  unjustifiably  protracted  job.  The  whole  affair,  in 
ray  judgment,  is  a  failure,  with  reference  to  the  use  the  building  is  to  be 
put  to;  but,  as  so  much  has  now  been  spent, there  is  no  other  course  than 
10  finish  it  as  soon  as  practicable. 

We  are  now  in  a  perfect  M  tinder  box,"  and  exposed  daily  to  be  destroy- 
ed by  fire  ;  and  if  our  papers  should  be  lost  by  a  calamity  of  that  kind,  im- 
mense mischief  would  ensue  to  the  country  and  the  Government. 


Sep.  No,  669. 


51* 


We  take  all  possible  care  in  this  respect,  but  at  this  season  of  the  year, 
with  the  intense  cold  weather  we  have  had,  a  fire  could  not  break  our 
within  five  hundred  yards  of  us,  without  exposing  us  ;  and  the  proximity  of 
the  new  building  on  the  east  side  to  the  adjoining  buildings  is  such,  that 
a  fire  there  would  crack  and  destroy  the  marble  on  that  side. 

The  buildings  we  now  occupy  I  took  for  one  year,  and  am  to  inform  the 
owners,  on  the  1st  of  February,  the  usual  day  for  letting,  whether  I  keep 
them  any  longer,  after  the  1st  of  May,  when  the  time  expires.  I  hardly 
know  what  to  say.  We  are  under  a  rent  of  $12,000,  and  1  did  not  expect 
last  year  to  be  compelled  to  live  under  that  rent  another  year  ;  and  if  we 
had  been  in  possession  of  the  funds  to  have  gone  on,  I  think  we  need  not 
have  been.    I  ask  for  directions  in  regard  to  renting  for  another  year. 

1  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

P.  S.  I  see  you  have  mistaken  the  act  under  which  you  ask  Tor  an  ap- 
propriation of  $3,354.  It  is  the  act  of  7th  July,  1838,  and  not  the  act  of 
19th  March,  1836.    It  is  the  estimate  next  to  the  custom-house,  Boston. 

J.  HOYT. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  20,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  reported  to  your  office,  on  the  2d  July  last,  the  seizure  of  one 
case,  containing  a  piano  forte,  marked  C  B  56,  imported  by  F.  H.  Meyer, 
which  case  was  tried  and  condemned  at  the  late  term  of  the  circuit  court. 
It  was  sold  and  the  expenses  exceeded  the  proceeds  in  the  sum  of  $106  06  . 
A  case  of  the  kind  I  do  not  intend  shall  occur  again. 

Respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Mathew  Birchard,  Esq.,  Solicitor,  fyc. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  22,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  yesterday  in  relation  to  the  commission  in 
the  case  of  Masters,  Markoe,  &  Co.  If  we  are  not  entitled  to  try  the 
cause  on  the  expiration  of  the  time  at  which  the  proceedings  are  stayed, 
we  have  no  other  course  to  adopt  than  to  sign  the  consent  proposed  by 
Mr.  Goddard.  But  I  think,  nevertheless,  it  would  be  better  to  let  them 
make  application  to  the  court,  when  you  can  raise  the  question  as  to  the 
time  the  court  will  permit  them  to  humbug  us.  I  return  you  the  draught 
of  consent.    I  would  thank  you  to  apprize  me  of  the  result. 

If  you  could  be  informed  as  to  the  manner  the  Government  officers  are 
treated  in  the  jury  room,  you  would  lose  all  sympathy  for  the  trading 
classes,  and  would  not  indulge  them  in  any  respect  beyond  their  legaL 
right. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  United  States  Attorney. 


512 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  23,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  25th  instant,  in  relation  to  the  falling 
off  of  the  revenue,  and  inquiring  whether  we  cannot  reduce  the  expen- 
ses at  this  office. 

1  am  aware  that  the  revenue  is  falling  off  now,  and  will  fall  off  stilt 
more.  We  have  but  veiy  little  to  give  you  this  week.  It  is  very  clear, 
then,  that  there  is  a  necessity  for  all  proper  economy.  1  will  advise  with 
the  heads  of  the  department  here,  and  give  you  our  views  at  the  earliest 
leisure  we  have. 

In  a  very  destructive  fire  we  had  last  night,  one  of  our  public  stores  is 
with  the  ruins.  I  left  the  fire  at  1 0  o'clock,  and  it  was  considered  safe  ;  but 
in  the  course  of  the  night  the  adjoining  building  was  discovered  to  be  on 
fire,  and  we  only  had  time  to  save  the  goods  on  the  first  floor. 

I  have  not  yet  ascertained  the  number  of  packages  destroyed,  but  shall 
know  as  soon  as  the  examination  of  the  hooks  of  the  office  is  completed. 
We  must  lose  duties  by  this  disastrous  calamity,  though  by  the  law  they 
have  accrued,  and  we  are  entitled  to  collect  them  ;  but  the  goods  destroy- 
ed went  to  the  public  store  on  a  general  order  under  the  56th  section  of  the 
act  of  1799,  and  the  names  of  the  owners  we  have  no  means  of  know- 
ing, for  in  most  instances  the  goods  are  consigned  to  order.  To  obviate 
this  difficulty,  I  addressed  a  letter  to  the  25  insurance  companies  in  this 
city,  a  copy  of  which  I  enclose,  the  object  of  which  is  to  ascertain  the 
names  of  the  owners,  and  the  value  of  the  goods,  so  that  I  may  interpose 
a  claim  for  the  duty.  I  shall  by  this  succeed  to  a  certain  extent,  as  the 
underwriters  with  whom  I  have  conferred  approve  of  the  plan  I  have 
adopted.  I  know  of  no  other  better  mode,  and  if  any  other  or  better 
mode  occurs  to  you,  I  will  thank  you  for  the  suggestion.  It  is  impossible 
at  this  moment  to  estimate  the  amount  of  accruing  duties  on  the  goods 
destroyed  ;  but  I  should  suppose,  as  there  were  a  good  many  woollens  in  the 
store,  that  they  could  not  be  less  than  $75,000,  and  probably  much  more. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  29,  1840. 
Sir  :  The  underwriters  have  declined  to  comply  with  my  circular  letter 
of  yesterday,  although  several  of  them  had  promised  to  do  so.  They  be- 
gin to  think  if  I  had  the  information  asked  for,  that  I  would  have  a  better 
chance  to  recover  duties,  which  might  eventually  fall  on  them  to  pay. 
They  are  wiser  than  I  expected  ;  but  I  think  I  can  arrive  at  a  similar  re- 
sult to  a  great  extent  in  another  way,  and  1  have  therefore  directed  the 
storekeeper  not  to  furnish  any  evidence  of  the  destruction  of  the  goods, 
without  having  an  examination  of  the  invoice  to  compare  with  the  store 
books  as  to  marks  and  numbers. 

We  had  another  large  fire  last  night,  and  if  the  atmosphere  had  not  been 
mild,  great  destruction  must  have  taken  place.  Our  community  are  very 
much  alarmed  at  the  frequency  of  fires. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodeury,  Secretary  of  ike  Treasury. 


Eep.  No.  669. 


513 


Custom- House,  New  York,  January  31,  1840. 
Sir  :  In  a  communication  made  to  me  some  days  ago,  you  proposed  to 
^ive  the  United  States  satisfactory  security  for  the  payment  of  the  bonds 
therein  referred  to.  1  wrote  vou  after  this  and  requested  you  to  call  at 
this  office,  with  the  view  of  inquiring  of  you  what  security  you  purposed 
to  give. 

I  have  now  to  say  unless  such  sureties  be  given  by  Monday  next,  the 
3d  of  February,  i  shall  be  compelled  to  send  the  bonds  to  the  district 
attorney. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Ed3iund  Lord,  New  York. 


Custo.m-House,  New  York,  February  5,  1840. 
Sir  :  You  will  probably  receive  a  letter  from  Messrs.  Dorr  &  Co.,  of 
this  city,  claiming  return  duties  on  silk  twist,  at  the  amount  of  over 
$1 1,000— commencing  from  1834,  and  so  up  to  the  present  time.  They 
left  the  statement  with  me,  and  requested  that  I  should  forward  it.  I  re- 
plied that  the  claim  was  large  and  that  most  of  it  arose  before  I  came  into 
office,  and  therefore  I  would  prefer  that  they  should  address  themselves 
directly  to  you. 

1  think  Congress  ought  to  be  undeceived  in  reference  to  the  powers  it 
is  supposed  by  some  that  it  exercises.  It  is  an  entire  mistake  that  the 
Legislative  and  Executive  Department  of  the  Government  makes  the 
laws  imposing  duties  on  imports.  They  are  made  by  jurors  and  interest- 
ed witnessess  and  party  newspapers.  There  is  no  use  in  disguising  the 
fact,  and  these  laws  will  continue  to  be  so  made  as  long  as  the  right  of 
action  is  left  to  the  importers  against  the  collector;  for  if  this  resort  is  left 
open,  it  is  utterly  impossible  that  we  can  ever  have  uniformity  of  action 
in  the  execution  of  the  tariff  laws.  If  I  recollect  right,  the  bill  for  estab- 
lishing a  board  to  liquidate  claims  on  the  Government  has  passed  the 
Senate ;  and  if  it  should  pass  the  House,  I  think  all  claims  on  the  Gov- 
ernment for  over-payment  to  collectors  might  with  the  same  propriety  be 
transferred  to  that  board  as  to  permit  a  right  of  action  against  the  collector. 

By  combinations  that  it  is  impossible  to  resist,  importers  are  able  to 
prove  enough  to  put  in  and  keep  us  in  the  wrong  to  the  end  of  time ;  and 
if  you  change  the  law,  it  will  not  be  long  before  a  change  of  name  or  a 
slight  alteration  of  the  fabric  will  take  place,  and  we  shall  then  be  before 
a  jury  in  as  bad  a  position  as  we  have  lately  been. 

Since  the  termination  of  the  trials  recently  had  in  this  circuit,  1  have 
been  called  upon  to  refund  duties  to  an  immense  amount,  and  some  had 
the  folly  to  go  back  for  a  period  of  ten  years  and  make  up  statements  upon 
the  idea  that  the  money  was  to  be  forthcoming  from  the  Treasury.  The 
presentation  of  the  claims  of  Messrs.  Dorr,  before  referred  to,  reminded 
me  of  the  intention  I  had  of  submitting  these  views  to  you. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


514 


Hep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  6,  1 840 . 

Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  3d  instant,  acknowledging  the  receipt  of 
mine  of  the  1st  in  relation  to  revenue. 

I  have  been  making  some  inquiries  to-day  of  English  agents  as  well  as 
our  own  merchants,  and  I  am  very  much  afraid  that  I  have  over-estimated 
the  amount  of  business  for  this  port  the  present  year. 

The  private  letters,  as  well  as  the  newspaper  accounts,  from  the  manu- 
facturing districts  of  Great  Britain,  are  exceedingly  bad;  the  former 
worse  than  the  latter. 

The  reformed  Yorkshire  gentlemen,  who  have  for  years  done  the  prin- 
cipal woollen  business,  tell  me  that  they  will  receive  but  a  very  few 
goods,  as  they  are  losing  a  great  deal  of  money  on  what  they  already  have. 

There  is  not  the  slightest  sign  of  business  here  as  yet  among  the  job- 
bers, whereas  last  year  at  this  time  many  houses  had  sold  several  hundred 
thousand  dollars'  worth. 

I  think  those  people  who  got  a  credit  last  year  in  this  market  may  go 
to  Philadelphia  and  get  a  credit  this  year,  especially  from  the  South  and 
Southwest;  but,  in  any  event,  I  am  somewhat  frightened  for  my  estimate. 
But  we  will  probably  know  more  on  the  arrival  of  the  Liverpool  steamer, 
which  is  daily  expected.  I  am  anxious  to  see  the  President's  message  on 
the  subject  of  the  tariff. 

Very  respectfullv. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  oj  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  February  8,  1840. 

Sir  :  Yours  of  the  6th  instant,  in  respect  to  reduction  now  going  on  in 
the  revenue  from  customs,  and  the  over  estimate  probably  made  by  you 
last  November  of  the  receipts  of  New  York,  has  been  received.  I 
thank  you  for  the  information  it  contains,  and  will  submit  it  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  Ways  and  Means  ;  almost  despairing,  however,  that  any  adequate 
measure  to  preserve  the  public  faith  will  reasonably  be  proposed  in  Con- 
gress and  adopted. 

Allow  me  to  add  another  point,  that  the  letter  sent  to  you  as  refunding 
duties,  only  when  the  protest  was  in  writing,  does  not  mean  to  give  any 
opinion,  or  instruction  to  refund  even,  in  any  such  case,  unless  you  and  the 
Comptroller  are  satisfied  that  the  decision  of  the  courts  as  to  it  is  correct 
or  cannot  be  reveised,  and  that  no  other  trial  of  the  question  is  practica- 
ble or  proper. 

Respectfully  yours, 

LEVI  WOODBURY. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  12,  1840. 
Sir  :  In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  28<h  January  last,  in  relation  to  the 
frauds  on  the  revenue  at  this  port,  "  I  beg  leave  to  report  by  bill." 


Sep.  No.  669. 


515 


I  have  from  time  to  time  reported  the  means  by  which  the  frauds  have 
been  carried  on  and  the  measures  I  had  taken  to  correct  them,  and  ir. 
which  I  think  I  have  been  tolerably  successful. 

In  your  letter,  you  tell  me  "  to  advise  with  the  United  States  district 
attorney  on  these  matters,  and  furnish  you  with  the  result,  at  as  early  a 
period  as  may  be  practicable,  of  my  views  on  points  not  presented  by  you.'* 

On  consultation,  we  thought  it  would  be  better  to  put  our,  views  in  the 
shape  of  a  bill,  accompanied  by  notes  of  explanation. 

We  have  adopted  that  course,  and  I  have  now  the  honor  to  enclose 
both  to  you  for  consideration,  which  embrace  all  that  applies  to  this 
branch  of  the  subject;  and  you  can  say  to  Congress,  or  any  of  its  com- 
mittees, that,  if  this  bill  passes,  the  collector  will  have  no  further  occasion 
to  make  out  any  account  of  "fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures,"  for  no  one 
would  be  silly  enough  to  attempt  to  defiaud  us  in  these  respects.  With 
reference  to  the  propositions  now  before  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means  on  your  report  to  the  President,  we  deem  them  very  important, 
but  which  is  not  alluded  to  in  the  considerations  now  presented  to  you. 

Very  respectfullv,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  28,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  have  but  just  discovered  that  all  the  bonds  we  take  here,  except 
bonds  for  the  payment  of  duties,  are  in  effect  good  for  nothing. 

In  this  respect,  I  have  pursued  the  practice  1  found  in  use  when  I  came 
into  office — that  is,  for  all  penal  bonds,  debenture  bonds,  &c,  we  permit 
one  of  a  firm  to  sign  the  name  of  the  firm,  under  the  idea  that  the  firm  are 
bound;  but  I  discover  that  the  25th  section  of  the  act  of  1833  applies 
only  to  bonds  for  duties. 

I  enclose  a  section  I  have  drawn  to  meet  the  case,  which  I  suggest 
should  be  sent  to  the  committee  of  Congress,  which  has  in  charge  kindred 
matters. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  ' 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  ail  bonds  taken  by  any  collector  of  the 
customs  in  the  name  of  the  United  States,  whether  to  secure  the  payment 
of  duties,  or  otherwise  executed  by  a  merchant  belonging  to  a  firm,  in  the 
name  of  such  firm,  shall  equally  bind  the  partner  or  partners  in  trade  of 
the  person  or  persons  by  whom  such  bond  shall  have  been  executed, 


Custom-House,  New  York,  March  3,  1840. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  29th  February,  in  which  you  direct  me  to  dis- 
pose, at  auction,  of  the  cutter  Rush,  &c,  came  to  hand  this  morning. 
The  crew  of  that  vessel  was  paid  off  un  Saturday,  the  29th,  and  the 


516 


Rep.  No.  669. 


rations  have  been  drawn  and  put  on  board  for  the  month  of  March.  She 
left  yesterday  for  the  sound  to  aid  in  mooring  the  light-ship  off  Stratford, 
which  had  been  driven  from  the  station  by  the  ice.  This  may  occupy 
her  for  some  days,  depending  upon  the  state  of  readiness  the  light-ship 
is  in  when  he  reaches  her. 

Under  this  state  of  things,  I  do  not  see  that  we  gain  much  by  discharg- 
ing the  crew  before  the  end  of  the  month,  as  I  think  in  all  fairness,  as 
they  have  commenced  the  month,  they  ought  to  be  paid  for  that  time. 
The  provisions  we  must,  of  course,  pay  for.  I  have,  however,  written  to 
Captain  Polk  to  come  to  town  as  soon  as  he  has  completed  the  mooring 
of  the  light-ship.  In  relation  to  the  sale  of  the  cutter,  I  have  to  suggest 
that  she  would  probably  not  bring  over  $1,500;  and  I  think  we  may  do 
much  better  with  her  than  to  make  that  sacrifice. 

I  have  been  corresponding  with  the  Fifth  Auditor  on  the  subject  of 
supplying  the  light-houses  in  this  district  with  oil  for  the  season,  and  I 
this  morning  received  a  letter  from  him,  dated  the  29th  of  February,  au- 
thorizing me  to  hire  a  boat  of  sufficient  size  to  take  the  oil  to  the  light- 
houses, and  to  take  care  of  the  buoys. 

On  consulting  with  Captain  Nicoll,  he  expressed  the  opinion  that,  by 
taking  out  the  armament,  water  casks,  &c,  from  the  Rush,  she  would 
not  draw  so  much  water  as  to  prevent  her  being  employed  in  that  service  ; 
and  I  therefore  suggest  that  we  sell  the  boat  now  under  the  charge  of  In- 
spector Davis,  and  retain  the  Rush,  and  put  Davis  on  board  of  her  with 
eight  men,  which  will  be  adequate  for  the  light-house  and  buoy  service. 
By  this  operation,  we  get  in  Mr.  Davis  a  good  pilot,  and  a  man  who  can 
perform  hard  or  light  service  as  circumstances  may  require,  which  we 
might  not  get  in  a  lieutenant  in  the  cutter  service.  Mr.  Davis's  moral  or 
physical  properties  have  in  no  way  been  weakened  by  the  use  of  "  tinsel 
gold  leaf  or  gilding  and  in  that  respect  I  think  his  services  would  be 
more  desirable  than  those  of  a  lieutenant. 

I  entirely  approve  of  the  saving  of  the  expenses  of  a  full  cutter;  but 
\he  service  in  other  quarters  might  call  for  a  cutter,  and  therefore  I  think 
we  ought  not  to  sell  the  Rush  at  any  price  she  would  bring.  I  throw  out 
these  suggestions  for  your  consideration,  and  recommend  that  you  submit 
them  to  the  Fifth  Auditor,  and  I  will  await  any  further  action  in  the 
premises  till  I  hear  from  you. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  March  3,  1840. 
Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  28th  ultimo,  enclosing  a  section  proposed  to  be 
introduced  into  some  law  to  remedy  the  defect  pointed  out  in  regard  to 
penal  bonds,  &c.  has  been  received. 

The  subject  will  be  submitted  to  the  appropriate  committee  of  Con- 
gress, in  order  that  such  a  provision  may  be  incorporated  into  some  law 
lor  future  protection.  But  it  is  not  thought  such  a  law  would  cure  the 
defect  in  regard  to  such  bonds  already  entered  into. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


517 


Custom- House,  New  York,  March  6,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  3d  instant,  touching  the  defects  of  the 
law  in  relation  to  bonds  other  than  those  given  for  duties.  I  am  aware 
that  any  legislation  now  will  cure  the  defects  already  existing ;  but  if  I 
could  anticipate  early  legislation,  I  would  not  change  the  practice,  lest  by 
so  doing,  the  persons  who  have  executed  the  bonds  would  be  apprized  of 
the  defects,  and  would  take  advantage  of  it.  But  1  confess  I  do  not  see 
any  great  prospect  of  legislation  of  any  kind. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  March  10.  1840. 

Sir  :  I  enclose  and  transmit  a  copy  of  a  confidential  letter,  received  in 
this  Department,  relative  to  a  shipment  of  linens  on  board  the  ship  St. 
James,  Lebar,  master,  about  to  sail  from  London  for  New  York.  The 
name  of  the  writer  of  this  letter  is  suppressed  in  consequence  of  the  con- 
fidential character  of  the  communication. 

You  will  please  to  notice  the  suggestions  therein  contained,  and  adopt 
such  rigid  examination  or  other  measures  relative  to  the  shipment  in  ques- 
tion, as  may  be  necessary  to  detect  any  attempted  fraud  upon  the  revenue 
therein. 

Very  respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  March  13,  1840. 
Sir  :  1  have  this  day  received  your  letter  of  the  10th  instant,  enclosing 
a  copy  of  one  from  London,  under  date  of  the  19th  February  last,  rela- 
tive to  the  shipment  of  some  linens  on  board  the  ship  St.  James,  bound 
lo  this  port.  I  am  unable  to  divine  the  motive  of  the  owner  of  the  goods 
for  the  course  he  has  pursued,  as  most  of  the  goods  from  Dundee,  except 
cotton  bagging  ( which  pays  a  square  yard  duty )  are  free,  under  the  4th  sec- 
tion of  the  act  of  1833,  as  it  has  been  construed ;  but  I  will,  nevertheless, 
keep  a  strict  watch  for  the  goods  referred  to  for  the  purpose  of  ascertain- 
ing the  motive. 

J  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


United  States  District  Attorney's  Office, 

New  York,  March  13,  1840. 
Sir:  I  have  received  from  the  Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  a  communica- 
tion on  the  subject  of  the  practice,  which,  as  you  are  aware,  has  always 


518 


Rep.  Na.  669. 


existed  in  this  district,  of  bringing  separate  suits  on  custom-house  bonds 
handed  over  for  collection  at  the  same  time,  in  which  he  instructs  me  as 
follows:  "From  the  general  convenience  that  results  from  several  suits, 
I  am  willing  that  you  should  continue  to  proceed  according  to  the  usages 
of  the  office,  with  this  modification,  that  when  you  have  reason  to  believe 
that  the  sum  due  upon  several  bonds,  which  may  be  joined  in  one  suit 
together  with  the  costs,  will  not  be  collected,  you  will  join  them  in  one 
suit,  unless  there  be  some  good  reason  to  the  contrary,  so  that  the  cost  bills 
may  be  reduced  as  much  as  possible."  In  order  to  enable  me  to  apply 
this  instruction  to  the  cases  of  the  extended  bonds  of  Nelson  J.  Elliot  L 
Co.,  David  N.  Lord,  and  Edwin  Lord  &  Co.,  recently  handed  over  to 
suit,  I  beg  leave,  in  the  absence  of  any  information  in  my  own  possession 
on  the  subject,  to  inquire  of  you,  whether  these  cases  or  any  of  them,  in 
your  opinion,  come  within  the  rule  stated  by  the  Solicitor. 

For  the  purpose  of  saving  trouble,  I  subjoin  the  names  of  the  princi- 
pals and  sureties,  with  the  number  of  the  bonds  in  each  case,  viz : 

Nelson  J.  Elliott  &  Co.,  principals,  Reuben  Elliott,  (of  Connecticut,) 
surety,  80  bonds. 

David  N.  Lord,  principal,  J.  H.  Pierson,  jr.,  surety,  110  bonds. 

Edwin  Lord  &  Co.,  principals,  David  N.  Lord,  surety,  56  bonds. 

David  N.  Lord  is  one  of  the  firm  of  Nelson  J.  Elliott  &  Co.  He  has 
a  large  amount  of  claims  under  the  law  for  the  relief  of  sufferers  by  the 
great  fire,  as  you  know ;  and  I  propose  to  withhold  from  suits  bonds  to  the 
probable  amount  which  may  be  allowed  to  him  under  that  law. 

I  am  sir,  &c. 

B.  F.  BUTLER, 
United  States  Attorney. 

J.  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  March  19,  1840. 
Sir  :  Please  inform  me,  at  your  earliest  convenience,  of  what  materi- 
als the  enclosed  sample  of  goods  is  composed  and  oblige.    I  received 
your  letter,  but  your  own  people  must  fight  your  battles;  it  is  hard  enough 
for  us  to  take  care  of  ourselves. 

Respectfully  yours, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Samuel  Lawrence,  Esq.,  Lowell. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  March  27,  1840. 
Sir:  The  amount  of  goods  coming  out  greatly  exceeds  all  calculations 
hitherto  made  on  the  subject.    There  are  several  European  vessels 
in  to-day.    As  it  is  so  late  in  the  season,  of  course  we  are  very  much 
pressed. 

It  would  be  of  vast  importance  to  us  if  Congress  would  without  delay 
pass  the  bill  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  though  it  re- 
quires some  (I  think)  alteration.  Under  the  present  state  of  the  public 
business  before  Congress,  I  am  very  unwilling  to  trouble  you  on  the  sub- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


519 


ject  referred  to  ;  but,  as  I  think  there  would  be  but  a  little  discussion  on  the 
bill  alluded  to,  I  suggest  whether  it  is  not  expedient  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  chairman  of  that  committee  to  this  bill. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  3,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  understand  you  have  been  subpoenaed  to  go  to  Philadelphia  as  a 
witness  for  the  claimants  in  the  cloth  case,  now  on  trial  in  that  city.  I 
understand,  also,  that  it  is  inconvenient  for  you  to  leave  your  business  to 
go.  If  you  are  examined  as  a  witness  for  the  claimants,  we  shall  have  the 
benefit  of  the  testimony  ;  and,  coming  as  it  w  ould  from  a  witness  called  by 
the  other  side,  we  might  in  a  case  of  that  kind,  as  you  will  perceive,  gain 
a  very  great  advantage. 

It  is  therefore  I  ask  you  to  go  in  obedience  to  the  subpoena  if  )ou  pos- 
sibly can. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Mr.  Richard  B.  Brown. 


Custom- House,  New7  York,  April  6,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  understand  you  have  some  papers  lodged  in  your  office  by  Mr. 
R.  B.  Brown,  of  this  city,  touching  the  value  of  certain  goods  which 
were  examined  at  your  port. 

We  have  similar  goods  now  in  progress  of  passing  the  custom-house 
here,  which  it  is  supposed  are  invoiced  too  low. 

I  should  be  very  much  obliged,  if  you  would  send  me  by  return  mail 
the  papers  referred  to,  or  copies  of  them. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
The  Collector  of  the  Customs,  Philadelphia. 


Lowell,  March  21,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  take  the  liberty  to  answer  your  letter  of  the  19th  instant,  on  ac- 
count of  the  absence  of  Mr.  S.  Lawrence,  who  left  this  day  for  Washing- 
ton city,  before  your  letter  came  to  hand. 

The  warp  of  the  piece  of  cassinet  you  sent  is  composed  of  a  double 
thread,  and  is  all  wool ;  the  filling  or  woof  is  a  single  thread,  and  is  all 
wool.    It  is  wholly  composed  of  wool. 

Yours,  &c. 

JAMES  COOK, 
Agent  Middlesex  Company, 

Mr.  Hoyt. 


4 


520  Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  April  7,  1840. 

Sir  :  The  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  is  now  in  session,  and 
there  are  a  great  many  cases  on  the  calendar  against  me  to  recover  back 
duties,  which  have  been  paid  on  the  articles  of  silk  twist,  worsted,  and 
linen  goods,  and  some  other  articles,  in  relation  to  which  the  court  and 
jury  passed  upon  last  January,  and  settled  the  rates  of  duty  to  be  assessed 
upon  them — all  of  which  I  have  in  conjunction  with  the  district  attorney 
heretofore  reported  to  the  Department. 

There  is  no  hope  of  changing  the  rule  of  decision,  and  we  are  therefore 
put  to  a  very  great  expense  in  permitting  the  suits  to  be  brought,  and  in- 
terposing a  defence.  , 

In  addition  to  this,  the  district  attorney  is  very  unwilling  to  appear  in 
court  defending  cases  under  such  circumstances,  and  when  no  possible 
beneficial  result  is  to  flow  to  the  United  States.  I  am  unwilling  also  to 
appear  upon  the  record  as  a  defendant,  and  to  be  told  by  the  court  that 
there  is  no  defence. 

Under  this  view  of  the  subject,  it  seems  to  me,  there  are  very  good 
reasons  for  Congress  acting  upon  the  bills  which  you  caused  to  be  laid 
before  a  committee  on  these  questions. 

I  beg,  therefore,  to  ask  your  directions  as  to  the  suits  referred  to,  until 
Congress  shall  act  in  the  matter. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom  House,  New  York,  April  15,  1840. 

Sir  :  We  have  been  five  weeks  in  trying  one  of  the  seizure  cases  in 
Philadelphia,  and  to-day  counsel  commenced  summing  up,  which  it  is 
said  will  consume  another  week.  We  have  no  doubt  of  success,  andr 
from  what  I  learn  from  my  people  who  returned  this  morning,  I  think  Mr. 
Sergeant  and  his  counsel  have  no  hope  of  acquitting  the  goods. 

The  amount  in  controversy,  in  the  case  now  on  trial,  is  about  $50,000. 

The  testimony,  as  it  has  been  taken,  has  been  reported  to  me  daily,  and 
I  have  been  unable  to  bring  out  much  evidences  of  fraud. 

We  have  been  exposed  too,  very  successfully ;  but  all  this  would  not 
satisfy  the  Whig  press  of  this  city,  that  great  oppression  did  not  exist  to 
this  custom-house. 

I  hope  to  get  a  verdict  in  the  Philadelphia  case  before  Mr.  Adams's  bill 
is  called  up. 

Very  respectfullv, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  April  18,  1840. 
Sir  :  1  looked  over  the  papers  you  handed  me  this  morning  in  relation 
to  heating  the  new  custom-house. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


521 


It  appears  from  the  letter  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  under  date 
of  the  6th  of  April,  that  he  has  taken  upon  himself  to  give  the  directions 
to  the  superintendent,  and  he  therefore  is  responsible  for  the  act,  and  not 
us,  and  I  have  not  been  able  to  discover  any  power  we  have  to  overrule 
his  decision  ;  but  1  am  not  satisfied  that  you  are  correct  in  what  you  say, 
in  relation  to  the  experiment  at  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  I  called 
on  Mr.  Griswold  after  I  left  you  ;  and  he  tells  me  that  he  has  faith  in  it,  and 
believes  it  to  be  the  best  and  cheapest  mode  of  warming,  but  that  the  works 
were  not  properly  put  up,  and  he  has  not  had  the  leisure  to  alter  them. 

I  am  perfectly  indifferent  to  the  whole  matter,  as  I  mentioned  to  you  this 
morning ;  for  I  am  so  thoroughly  disgusted  with  the  extravagant  and  use- 
less expenditure  of  money  in  the  whole  affair,  as  well  as  the  shameful 
consumption  of  time  in  the  construction  of  the  building,  that  I  cease  to 
feel  any  interest  in  its  fate.  1  have  endeavored  in  vain,  since  I  have 
been  connected  with  it,  to  push  the  work  to  a  conclusion,  that  there 
might  be  an  end  to  the  waste  of  money  ;  but  I  abandon  all  hope  on  the 
subject,  and  will  leave  you  to  give  such  directions  as  you  may  deem  best 
suited  to  the  public  interest. 

I  return  you  the  papers. 

With  great  respect,  &c. 

J.  HOYT. 

Walter  Bowne,  Esq.,  New  York. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  8,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  enclose  you  a  copy  of  a  letter  I  received  a  day  or  two  since 
from  Mr.  Consul  Davy,  at  Leeds,  in  reference  to  the  frauds  practised  on 
the  revenue  in  woollen  goods. 

The  Mr.  Walker  he  refers  to,  wre  very  thoroughly  sifted  on  the  late 
trial  in  Philadelphia,  in  which  case  he  was  called  as  a  witness  for  the 
claimants.  I  had  some  of  his  goods  under  seizure,  and  had  therefore 
found  out,  through  my  correspondence  with  England,  something  of  his 
history. 

In  two  days  after  he  was  examined  as  a  witness,  he  took  his  departure 
for  England,  and  will  not  probably  venture  back  again.  I  suggest  that 
you  send  a  copy  of  the  enclosed  letter  to  Mr.  Adams  to  read  when  his  bill 
is  up.    It  would  not  perhaps  be  proper  to  give  the  name  of  the  writer. 

1  had  a  letter  from  Judge  Hopkinson  this  morning,  in  relation  to  print- 
ing his  opinion.  It  is  to  be  published  in  Philadelphia  in  pamphlet  form, 
and  he  will  correct  the  proof.  I  understand  it  is  an  excellent  opinion, 
and  I  am  inclined  to  think  he  is  proud  of  the  performance.  I  will  send 
you  a  copy  as  soon  as  I  get  it. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  8,  1840. 
Dear  Sir  :  I  had  the  pleasure  of  receiving  your  letter  of  yesterday 
this  morning. 


522 


Rep.  No.  669. 


From  what  I  have  heard  of  your  opinion,  I  am  very  anxious  to  peruse 
it  1  think  150  copies  will  be  as  many  as  we  shall  want;  but  if  Mr. 
Read  should  think  more  would  be  desirable,  I  will  consent  to  any  num- 
ber he  may  recommend. 

The  suggestion  that  it  should  be  printed  in  Philadelphia  is  a  very  good 
one,  for  the  reason  that  it  gives  us  the  benefit  of  having  it  correctly  done 
through  your  correction  of  the  proof. 

I  hope  to  have  a  copy  the  moment  it  is  out. 

With  great  respect, 

J.  HOYT. 

Hon.  Joseph  IIopkinson,  Philadelphia, 


Custom- House,  New  York,  May  8,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  am  in  receipt  of  your  various  letters,  and  last  yours  of  the  11th 
of  April,  enclosing  duplicate  of  one  of  the  6th  of  the  same  month.  We 
had  discovered  the  character  of  Walker  prior  to  the  receipt  of  your  let- 
.  and  we  probabl}r  drove  him  from  the  country  by  a  very  severe  exam- 
ination of  him  on  a  trial  in  Philadelphia,  which  lasted  8  weeks,  and  was 
.■losed  on  Monday  by  the  finding  of  a  verdict  for  the  United  States  against 
a  large  quantity  of  woollen  goods  seized  in  that  city  last  August. 

ave  furnished  a  copy  of  your  letter  of  the  6th  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  and  he  will,  as  I  do,  feel  under  great  obligation  for  the  infor- 
on  you  give  us. 

We  shall  not  give  up  the  goods  of  Walker,  and  we  hope  to  condemn 
them  ;  for  we  entertain  the  belief  that  Waite  was  a  party  to  the  fraud. 

2  have  been  expecting,  for  several  days,  a  copy  of  the  "  Blue  Book" 
llO;n  Washington,  which  I  hope  to  be  able  to  send  by  the  steamer  to-mor- 
row, and  if  it  comes  in  time,  I  will  do  so  ;  it  not,  I  will  send  it  by  an  early 
packet.    Thanking  you  for  your  interesting  letters, 

I  remain,  very,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

P.  S.  1  notice  what  you  say  of  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Faber,  as  your 
deputy.  J.  H. 

Albert  Davy,  Esq., 

American  Consul,  Leeds. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  May  8,  1840. 

Sib  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  13th  of  April,  in  relation  to  the  neces- 
sity of  a  verification  of  all  invoices  of  goods  paying  an  ad  valorem  duty. 

The  invoices,  it  is  true,  must  be  verified  by  the  oath  of  the  owners  ;  but 
one  of  the  owners  living  in  this  country  swears  to  the  invoice  when  he 
enters  the  goods. 

1  am  perfectly  aware  of  the  frauds  that  are  practised  in  this  respect, 
and  1  have  done  much  in  breaking  them  up,  and  shall  continue  my  efforts. 

There  is  now  a  bill  before  Congress  on  this  subject,  which  1  drew,  and 
I  am  in  great  hopes  it  will  pass. 

The  commission  in  the  case  of  Masters,  Markoe,  &  Co.  was  sent  to  me, 


Hep.  No.  669. 


523 


when  it  should  have  been  sent  to  the  clerk  of  the  court.  I  opened  the 
package  and  found  what  it  was,  and,  without  reading  any  part  of  it,  or 
even  your  letters  concerning  it,  I  sent  it  to  the  court.  I  have  not  had 
the  leisure  yet  to  go  to  the  court  and  look  into  the  affairs ;  but  as  soon  as  I 
am  able  to  do  so  I  will,  when  I  shall  do  myself  the  honor  to  address  you 
-on  the  subject. 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Thomas  Dennison,  Esq., 

American  Consul,  Bristol. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  9,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  am  indebted  to  you  for  several  letters,  which  I  have  omitted  to 
answer.    As  you  will  have  learned  before  this,  the  packets  in  which  they 
came  had  very  long  passages. 

The  character  of  the  goods  as  well  as  the  owners,  which  were  referred 
to  by  you,  we  were  familiar  with  ;  and  if  we  had  not  been,  such  is  the 
nature  of  the  present  law,  we  could  not  have  availed  ourselves  of  any 
advantage,  for  the  reason  that  the  goods  had  not  been  entered. 

Those  referred  to  in  your  letters  of  the  20th  and  24th  January  had  been 
in  public  store  in  this  port  since  last  July,  but,  as  they  were  not  entered 
by  the  false  invoices,  no  penalty  had  attached  ;  but  there  is  a  law  now  be- 
fore Congress  which  will  put  all  this  matter  right  if  it  passes.  I  drew 
the  law  myself,  at  the  request  of  Mr.  Adams,  the  chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures.  I  hope  it  will  pass.  But  your  letters  were, 
nevertheless,  very  welcome  ;  and  we  wish  that  they  might  be  repeated 
when  any  thing  occurs  that  seems  to  be  irregular. 

We  finished  last  Monday,  at  Philadelphia,  a  cause  which  had  been  on 
trial  since  9th  of  March  ;  and  we  succeeded  in  condemning  some  woollen 
goods  seized  in  that  port  last  August,  and  some  of  them  were  of  the  same 
mark  as  those  referred  to  in  your  letters  just  mentioned. 

I  will  send  you  a  copy  of  Judge  Hopkinson's  opinion  in  that  case  in  a 
few  days  ;  it  will  be  published  in  a  pamphlet  form. 

Very  truly,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
F.  B.  Ogden,  Esq.,  American  Consul,  Liverpool. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  11,  1840. 
Dear  Sir  :  On  what  day  are  you  to  bring  on  the  seizure  cases  in  your 
district?  Be  pleased  to  tell  me  what  cases  are  to  be  tried  first,  and  who 
of  us  you  want  on  the  occasion  ;  and  tell  me  generally  the  state  of  the 
affairs.  I  have  forgotten  all  about  them.  You  will  have  in  a  few  days  a 
copy  of  Judge  Hopkinson's  opinion.  I  send  a  letter  from  Mr.  Wasson. 
Let  me  hear  all  the  particulars,  &c. 

Yours  truly, 

J.  HOYT.  Collector. 

Nathaniel  Williams,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney,  Baltimore, 
22* 


524 


Hep.  ]\To.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  11,  1840, 

My  dear  Sir:  I  notice  a  letter  under  date  of  the  8th  instant,  from 
Washington,  published  in  the  Journal  of  Commerce  of  this  morning,  in 
which  there  is  the  following  paragraph  : 

u  But  it  was  stated  to-day  by  Mr.  Adams  that  neither  he  nor  his  com- 
mittee, nor  the  manufacturers,  had  any  thing  to  do  with  it.    The  bill  was 
drawn  by  Mr.  Butler,  the  district  attorney  of  New  York,  and  Mr.  Hoyt, 
the  collector;  and  came  (o  the  Committee  on  Manufactures  through  the' 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury." 

There  is  also  in  the  same  paper  a  letter  from  the  same  place,  under 
date  of  the  9th  instant,  in  which  there  is  a  paragraph  in  these  words,  said 
to  have  been  uttered  by  you  : 

"  The  collector  had  shown  him  the  bill,  but  he  told  him  he  did  not  ap- 
prove of  it,  and  that  he  did  not  consider  it  a  republican  measure." 
There  is  an  apparent  contradiction  in  the  two  statements,  that  I  should 
have  contributed  to  the  drawing  of  the  bill  in  question,  as  is  alleged  to 
have  been  stated  by  Mr.  Adams,  and  should  have  stated  to  you  that  I  did 
not  approve  of  it,  would  imply  such  a  course  on  my  part  as  I  am  incapa- 
ble of  adopting. 

We  had  a  conversation  on  the  subject  of  the  bill  during  your  late  visit 
to  this  city,  and  I  pointed  out  to  you  the  following  words  in  the  5th  line 
of  the  2d  section,  as  originally  reported,  viz :  u  each  bale  and  package 
of,"  which  I  thought  ought  to  have  been  stricken  out,  for  the  reason  that 
it  would  be  next  to  impossible  to  execute  it,  and  also  that  it  would  be  at- 
tended with  an  expense  so  entirely  disproportioned  to  the  value  of  the 
object  to  be  attained,  that  I  deemed  it  injudicious  to  retain  the  words  in 
question.  I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  the  words  referred  to  were  not 
in  the  original  draught  of  the  bill. 

I  also  stated  to  you  that  I  was  wholly  indifferent  to  the  fate  of  the 
measure,  so  far  as  I  was  personally  concerned  ;  if  the  personal  interests 
of  the  revenue  officers  were  to  be  consulted,  the  law  was  well  enough  as 
it  stands  now,  for  the  looser  the  law  is,  the  more  frequent  the  effort  to 
evade  it,  and  the  greater  the  chance  of  a  proper  vigilance  of  detection, 
which  would  inure  to  the  benefit  of  the  seizing  officers.  But  1  also  added, 
as  a  public  measure  the  bill  ought,  in  my  judgment,  to  become  a  law  ;  and 
in  that  respect  I  felt  anxious  that  it  should  pass,  and  my  opinion  has  not 
since  undergone  any  change  on  the  subject. 

I  make  this  explanation  to  you  lest  you  may  have  misunderstood  the 
subject  of  our  conversation,  and  with  the  view  of  taking  myself  out  of 
the  di'emma  the  paragraphs  above  quoted  seem  to  have  put  me  in,  which 
I  beg  you  will  do  me  the  favor  to  explain  to  the  House,  if  the  debate  is 
still  open. 

Very  truly, 

J.  HOYT. 

Hon.  James  Monroe,  M.  C,  Washington. 


Custom-House,'New  York,  May  11,  1840. 
Sir  :  Mr.  Samuel  Shaw  has  been  to  see  me  several  times  in  relation  to 
his  goods  under  seizure  in  your  district. 


Ecp.  No.  669. 


525 


He  has  proposed  to  forfeit  one-half  of  the  value,  and  I  have  promised 
him  to  advise  you  to  accept  the  proposition. 

The  form  of  carrying  out  such  an  arrangement  would  he — 

1.  To  agree  upon  the  value  of  the  goods  at  which,  under  this  arrange- 
ment, a  bond  should  be  given  for,  under  the  89th  section  of  the  act — a  form 
of  which  consent  I  now  send. 

2.  To  make  the  matter  conform  to  that  section,  there  must  be  a  certifi- 
cate of  the  payment  of  duties — the  form  of  which  I  also  send. 

The  bond  then  must  be  given  to  the  clerk  of  the  court  and  costs  paid, 
when  the  goods  would  be  discharged  from  custody  ;  and  the  bond  then  must 
be  immediately  paid. 

In  this  form  we  have  been  in  the  habit  of  arranging  cases  in  this  district. 

This  being  concluded  upon,  the  question  arises  :  Who  is  to  sign  the  con- 
sents ?  I  think  I  ought  to  sign  them,  but  as  to  this  I  have  no  choice  other 
than  to  do  the  business  agreeably  to  the  forms  of  law  and  the  legal  rights 
of  all  parties  interested.  I  think  the  interests  of  the  United  States  would 
be  promoted  by  the  arrangement.  It  would  probably  lead  to  similar  offers 
on  the  part  of  others,  which,  if  made,  we  will  pass  upon.  As  Mr.  Dallas  is 
the  counsel  of  the  custom-house  officers  in  Philadelphia,  and  Mr.  Cad- 
walader  the  counsel  of  like  officers  in  this  city,  I  suggest  that  they  be 
consulted  on  the  question. 

Your  early  answer  is  very  desirable. 

With  great  respect,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

3.  M.  Read,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  14,  1840. 
Sir:  I  received  this  morning  a  copy  of  the  bill  in  relation  to  the  col- 
lection of  the  revenue,  as  it  finally  passed  the  House  of  Representatives, 
by  which  I  notice  such  a  change'  in  the  original  9th  section  (10th  of  my 
draught)  as  wholly  to  destroy  the  effect  I  intended  the  section  should  pro- 
duce. I  send  herewith  a  copy  of  the  original,  and  also  my  reasons  for 
drawing  it.  The  design  was  to  protect  the  Treasury  and  preserv  e  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  tariff  laws  from  the  latitudinarian  construction  that  persons 
interested  would  give  to  them.  By  the  section  as  it  has  passed  the 
House,  the  proposition  is  confined  to  the  trial  of  seizure  cases,  which  is 
comparatively  speaking  of  minor  importance.  I  am  therefore  anxious 
that  the  bill  shourd  be  amended  in  the  Senate  so  as  to  meet  the  case  de- 
signed. 

If  we  strike  out  from  the  word  "customs"  in  the  2d  line  to  the  word 
"shall"  in  the  5th  line,  it  would  substantially  stand  as  it  originally  did, 
and  would  have  a  general  operation  and  not  confined  alone  to  seizure 
cases;  or  if  we  add  after  the  word  "states"  in  the  5th  line,  the  following 
words  it  might  be  better,  as  it  would  then  extend  the  suits  brought  to  re- 
cover excess  of  duties  against  a  former  collector.  "And  in  all  suits 
..gainst  any  person,  who  shall  have  acted  as  collector  of  any  port  or 
district." 

I  suggest  that  you  should  call  the  attention  of  the  proper  committee  of 
the  Senate  to  the  subject.    I  have  noticed  the  character  of  the  debate  on 


526 


Hep.  No.  669. 


the  10th  and  llth  sections  of  the  bill  in  relation  to  the  frauds  of  officers 
and  clerks  of  the  customs. 

That  system  undoubtedly  did  prevajl  at  one  time  about  this  department 
to  a  great  extent,  and  was  properly  characterized  by  Mr.  Hand,  one  of 
the  representatives  from  this  State,  in  the  debate  alluded  to.  Although"! 
drew  a  section  to  meet  the  case,  I  did  so  because  1  supposed  the  provi- 
sions in  the  act  of  1793  and  1822  were  not  sufficiently  strong;  and  not 
because  I  believed  that  there  was  any  immediate  necessity  of  legislation 
so  far  as  this  district  was  concerned.  When  I  came  into  office,  the  prac- 
tice alluded  to  in  the  House  of  Representatives  did  exist  in  this  office.  I 
issued  an  order  that  it  should  be  wholly  discontinued,  under  the  penalty 
of  removal  from  office.  I  have  since  detected  but  one  person  viola- 
ting the  order,  and  he  was  immediately  dismissed ;  and  there  is  no  one 
now  in  the  department  against  whom  1  entertain  the  suspicion.  Several 
were  discharged  for  this  offence  soon  after  I  came  into  office  ;  and  at  the 
time  1  isssued  the  order  ailuded  to,  I  supposed,  and  do  now  suppose,  that 
this  office  has  since  been  free  from  any  just  charge  in  this  respect.  I 
should  have  been  glad  if  Mr.  Wise  had  stated  the  names  of  the  mer- 
chants who  made  the  complaint  to  him  when  he  was  in  this  city  on  the 
investigating  committee.  That  might  have  enabled  me  to  have  caused  such 
inquiries  to  be  instituted  as  would  have  resulted  in  a  benefit  to  the  pub- 
lic service. 

It  appears  to  me  that  honest  merchants  would  have  been  quite  as  likely 
to  have  communicated  the  fact  to  me,  as  to  an  investigating  committee  ; 
and  I  am  therefore  quite  inclined  to  believe  that  it  was  a  trader  in  poli- 
tics, who  represented  himself  a  trader  in  merchandise,  that  made  the  com- 
munication to  Mr.  Wise.  I  say  this  because  I  cannot  believe  that  any 
honest  merchant  who  knew  of  such  a  practice  then  existing  would  have 
omitted  to  state  it  to  the  head  of  the  department  who  had  the  power  of 
correcting  so  flagrant  an  evil,  and  which  head  had  never  evinced  any  dis- 
position to  shield  an  offender  ;  and  therefore  I  am  unwilling  to  believe  that 
anyone  entitled  to  the  appellation  of  an  honest  merchant  could  have 
made  such  a  communication  to  Mr.  Wise.  It  could  have  been  no  other 
than  an  impostor — some  one  who  represented  himself  to  be  what  he  was 
not. 

Respectfullv. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  May  16,  1840. 
Dear  Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  14th  instant,  in  relation  to  the 
seizure  cases,  and  you  send  me  subpoenas  with  directions  to  put  in  such 
names  as  I  wish. 

I  am  ignorant  of  the  ground  upon  which  you  propose  to  condemn  the 
goods.    I  might  have  known  once,  but,  if  I  ever  did,  I  have  forgotten. 

I  wish  you  by  return  raai.  to  tell  me  the  ground,  to  the  end  that  I  may- 
prepare  the  testimony. 

I  think  I  shall  prevail  on  Mr.  Wrasson  to  make  you  a  visit  before  the 
time  stated  by  rou,  as  he  was  present  during  all  the  trial  in  Philadelphia, 


Rep.  No.  669.  527 

He  can  materially  aid  you  in  preparing  the  cause,  but  as  it  is  necessary 
for  us  to  know  before  he  leaves  here  with  the  papers,  the  exact  ground 
upon  which  we  are  to  try  the  cause  

Very  truly, 

J.  HOYT. 

N.  Williams,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


New  York,  May  16,  1840. 

Dear  Sir  :  1  have  your  letter  of  yesterday  in  relation  to  Shaw's  case. 
If  Mr.  Read  thinks  it  best  to  apply  to  the  Solicitor,  he  had  better  do  it 
without  delay.  1  suggest  that  he  should  send  a  copy  of  my  first  letter  to 
him,  with  such  views  of  his  own  as  he  thinks  best. 

1  want  to  prepare  the  cases  for  Baltimore,  and  it  becomes  necessary  for 
me  to  have  from  you  the  entries  and  invoices  of  John  Taylor,  jr.,  by  the 
following  vessels,  viz : 

George  Washington,  May,  1839. 

George  Washington,  January,  1839. 

Columbus,  January,  1839. 

George  Washington,  January,  1839. 

Garrick,  January,  1839. 

Sheffield,  January,  1S39. 

North  America,  January,  1839. 

Be  pleased  to  send  them  by  first  mail. 

As  soon  as  you  gentlemen  have  decided  what  we  are  to  do  in  Shaw's 
case,  let  me  know. 

Truly,  &c.  J.  HOYT. 

John  Cadwalader,  Esq.,  Philadelphia. 

P.  S.  1  did  not  draw  the  13th  and  15th  sections  of  the  bill  you  refer 
to.    They  came  from  Boston,  I  believe.  J.  H. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  20,  1840. 
Sir  :  The  enclosed  narrative  at  suit  of  S.  &  F.  Dorr  &  Co.,  in  the  su- 
perior court,  was  served  on  me  this  day,  as  also  the  bill  of  particulars. 
1  have  to  request  that  you  will  take  charge  of  the  defence  of  the  same. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  20,  1840. 
Sir  :  The  enclosed  narrative  at  suit  of  James  McCall  &  Co.,  in  the  su- 
perior court,  was  served  on  me  this  day,  as  also  bill  of  particulars. 

1  have  to  request  that  you  will  take  charge  of  the  defence  of  the  same. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  United  States  Attorney. 


528 


Eep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  20,  1840. 
Dear  Sir:  I  have  yours  of  the  18th  instant.  Mr.  Wasson  will  leave 
here  on  Sunday  afternoon,  and  spend  Monday  in  Philadelphia,  and  be 
with  you  on  Tuesday.  It  is  indispensable  that  you  get  some  merchants 
in  Baltimore  to  appraise  the  goods ;  it  will  not  answer  to  leave  them  upon 
the  appraisement  of  two  of  the  officers  from  this  department. 

Yours  truly, 

J.  HOYT. 

N.  Williams,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney,  Baltimore. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  20,  1840. 

Sir  :  You  will  probably  notice,  in  the  Journal  of  Commerce  of  this 
morning,  a  report  of  the  trial  of  a  case  against  me,  to  recover  a  duty  on 
twist,  paid  under  protest. 

You  will  see  a  statement  made  by  Mr.  Butler,  which  was  without  my 
request  or  knowledge — for  I  am  not  in  the  habit  of  making  an  apology  for 
the  performance  of  my  official  duties,  or  attempting  to  throw  off  any  re- 
sponsibility that  properly  falls  upon  me  ;  but  1  beg  to  say  to  you,  that  the 
amount  of  the  claims  on  the  article  of  twist  is  small,  and  the  costs  on  both 
sides,  which  we  have  to  pay,  is  nearly  equal  to  the  debt. 

Two  suits  have  been  commenced  this  morning,  and  I  now  forward  a 
copy  of  the  bills  of  the  particulars  which  were  served  on  me  with  the 
declarations,  by  which  you  will  see  the  claim  in  one  suit  is  $342  04,  and 
in  the  other  $423  84.  It  will  cost  $150  in  each  suit  for  a  defence,  and 
we  are  beaten  as  a  matter  of  course. 

I  submit  this  view  of  the  case  for  your  consideration. 

J  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  May  20,  1S40. 

Sir  :  The  standing  committee  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  a  on 
the  expenditures  of  the  Department  of  the  Treasury,"  has  propounded 
the  following  questions^  which,  it  is  presumed,  can  be  readily  answered 
by  reference  to  the  records  of  your  office,  viz  : 

"  1st.  What  number  of  seizures  have  been  made  by  the  collector  of  New 
York,  since  the  1st  of  January,  1838,  and  from  what  cause  in  each  case  ? 

"  2d.  What  number  have  been  decided,  upon  trial,  in  favor  of  the  United 
States,  and  what  number  released,  and  the  amount  in  each  case? 

"3d.  What  amount  of  duties  have  been  refunded  by  virtue  of  judicial 
decisions  ? 

"4th.  What  has  been  the  cost  to  the  United  States  of  these  seizures; 
what  amount  of  fees  paid  to  the  district  attorney  and  to  the  collector  on 
account  of  suits  for  seizures?" 


Eep.  No.  669. 


529 


I  will  thank  you  to  furnish  me  with  this  information,  or  so  much  of  it  as 
it  is  in  your  power  to  render,  at  as  early  a  period  as  may  be  practicable. 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Collector,  fyc. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  22,  1840. 

Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  containing  the  interroga- 
tories propounded  by  the  standing  committee  of  the  House  of  Represen- 
tatives on  the  Expenditures  in  the  Depaitment  of  the  Treasury,  in  refer- 
ence to  seizures  and  refunding  of  duties. 

Immediately  on  the  receipt  of  your  letter,  I  put  the  investigation  into 
the  hands  of  the  proper  clerks,  and  I  will  make  the  report  at  the  earliest 
moment  possible  ;  but  I  think  it  will  consume  more  time  than  you  antici- 
pated, and  therefore  it  is  that  I  write  to  say  that  it  shall  be  forwarded  at 
the  earliest  moment  possible. 

I  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  25,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  send  you  the  memorandum  I  showed  you  yesterday  of  Samuel 
Shaw's  goods.  I  do  not  think  we  agreed  yesterday  on  any  positive  course 
to  pursue  in  the  matter.  He  is  a  gentlemen  of  no  particular  scientific  ac- 
quirements, and  I  cannot  make  him  understand  how  the  business  is  to  be 
arranged,  if  arranged  at  all.  I  advised  him  to  go  on  this  evening  and  see 
his  counsel,  which  he  will  do  ;  and  you  and  he  must  definitely  settle  the 
matter,  and  I  authorize  you,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  to  do  it  in  any  way 
you  think  proper,  under  the  sanction  of  the  district  attorney,  whom,  I  pre- 
sume, Mr.  Shaw  will  not  be  able  to  see,  in  consequence  of  his  engage- 
ments with  the  court  martial. 

H.  L.  Van  Wyck,  an  auctioneer  of  this  city,  is  to  have  the  sale  of  the 
goods ;  and  I  understood  him  to  say,  if  Mr.  Shaw  would  give  an  order  on 
the  marshal  for  the  goods  in  his  favor,  that  he  would  sign  the  bond,  or  au- 
thorize some  one  to  sign  it  for  him.  He  is  competent  security  and  an 
honorable  man.  I  think  you  and  Mr.  Ingersoll  can,  by  consent,  arrange 
the  whole  affair ;  but  if  you  cannot,  then  state  the  difficulties  to  me,  and  I 
will  see  whether  I  can  obviate  them. 

You  had  better  apprize  Mr.  Ingersoll,  as  soon  as  you  get  this,  that  Mr. 
Shaw  will  be  upon  him  early  to-morrow  morning. 

Very  tespectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  Cadwalader,  Esq.,  Philadelphia. 

P.  S.  You  will  please  explain  to  Mr.  Reed  why  I  wrote  to  you.  It  is 
because  I  did  not  think  Shaw  would  be  able  to  see  him  ;  and  as  you  and 
Mr.  Ingersoll  are  neighbors,  I  thought  you  could  more  conveniently  at- 
tend to  it.  J.  HOYT. 


530  Rep.  Xo.  669. 

Custom-House,  New  York,  May  30,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  send  you,  by  this  day's  mail,  five  copies  of  Judge  Hopkinson's 
charge — one  for  Judge  Story,  one  for  Mr.  Mills,  one  for  Mr.  Bartlett, 
one  for  Mr.  Fletcher,  and  one  for  yourself. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Geo.  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Collector,  Boston. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  May  30,  1840.. 

Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  20th  instant,  in  relation  to  certain  provi- 
sions in  what  is  commonly  called  the  Adams  bill,  now  before  a  committee 
of  the  Senate.    I  have  to  say,  in  reply— 

1st.  In  reference  to  an  additional  principal  appraiser,  I  think  this  im- 
portant. By  the  first  section  of  the  bill,  the  collector  is  called  upon  to  re- 
port as  to  the  manner  o(  employing  the  appraisers  and  assistants.  If  I  had 
this  duty  to  perform,  I  should  wholly  reorganize  that  establishment.  I 
should  place  the  principal  appraisers  in  the  various  lofts,  where  the  goods 
were  examined,  to  overlook  and  personally  inspect  the  examinations,  and 
not  permit  them  to  remain,  as  they  now  do,  in  an  office  by  themselves, 
where  no  goods  are  examined.  To  do  this  we  want  another  appraiser, 
and  a  good  one  too,  whom  I  should  put  in  the  woollen  loft,  where  the 
principal  mischief  has  been  done.  This  reform  is  indispensably  required, 
and  to  do  that  we  must  have  additional  appraisers. 

2d.  The  6th  section.  This  is  an  enlargement  of  the  8th  section  of  the 
act  of  1832,  under  which  I  have  had  frequent  examinations,  and  when 
counsel  here  objected  to  the  collector  putting  any  question.  I  admit  that 
it  is  strong  in  its  provisions;  but  a  revenue  cutter  carries  guns,  but  seldom 
fires  them,  and  this  is  considered  a  prevention  to  smuggling,  and  that  is 
the  office  of  the  6th  section.  It  is  a  delegation  of  power  upon  a  "preven- 
tive  service,"  that  will  do  much  to  save  the  execution  of  the  power.  In 
my  judgment,  it  is  not  harsh  for  rogues,  and  it  is  not  made  for  honest  men. 
If  any  collector  should  abuse  the  power,  insert  a  provision  for  his  punish- 
ment, and  try  him  by  a  jury  in  any  other  place  than  the  city  of  New 
York. 

I  was  the  first  collector,  I  believe,  that  made  the  attempt  to  act  under 
the  8th  section  of  183*2,  and  this  I  did  before  I  was  in  office  two  months ; 
but  owing  to  its  excessive  weakness,  I  gained  but  little  by  it. 

I  send  you  a  blank  I  drew  up  under  the  section  referred  to.  The  6th 
section  gives  the  same  power  to  the  collectors  as  the  other  section  does  to 
appraisers. 

3d.  The  9th  section,  as  it  stands,  I  wholly  repudiate  ;  and  especially  as 
my  name  has  been  connected  with  the  origin  of  the  bill.  I  wrote  to  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  on  the  subject,  as  soon  as  I  saw  the  amended 
bill,  on  the  14th  day  of  this  month,  and  requested  him  to  send  the 
letter  to  the  proper  committee.  The  frame  of  the  section  now  looks  as 
though  the  collector  wished  a  personal  protection  for  his  acts  that  would 
not  belong  to  others.  I  repudiate  the  idea  so  far  as  I  am  concerned.  I 
send  you  a  copy  of  the  section  as  I  originally  drew  it;  and  I  assign  my 
reasons  for  it,  which  I  hold  to  be  sound,  and  based  upon  just  principles  o€ 


Rep.  No.  669. 


531 


the  law  of  evidence.  I  desire  that  you  will  take  occasion  to  say,  in  the 
Senate,  that  I  am  not  responsible  for  the  section  as  it  stands  now,  and  that 
1  object  to  it  as  strongly  as  any  one. 

4th.  In  relation  to  inserting  a  provision  that  the  collector  shall  designate 
all  the  packages  to  be  examined.  I  have  to  say  that  this  is  done  by  the 
deputies,  and  not  the  clerk,  as  it  is  represented. 

1  do  not  think  that  the  collector  could  do  it  and  attend  to  other  duties. 
We  have  sometimes  400  entries  a  day,  and  it  requires  four  deputies  to 
go  through  with  it.  The  designation  of  the  packages  is  an  important  and 
onerous  part  of  the  business.  I  am  constantly  in  the  habit  of  consult- 
ing and  advising  the  deputies  in  this  respect ;  and  I,  the  collector,  car* 
be  more  profitably  employed  in  the  general  supervision  of  these  matters 
than  by  confining  him  by  law  to  that  specific  duty.  I  am  opposed  to  it  for 
these  reasons. 

I  have  now  adverted  to  all  the  points  suggested  by  you. 

The  15th  section  I  did  not  see  till  it  had  been  reported.  I  think  abuses 
might  grow  up  under  that.  The  manufacturers  abroad  consign  to  auction- 
eers, who  make  advances  for  about  the  value.  Some  mere  man  of  straw, 
other  than  the  auctioneer,  may  enter  them,  and  fraudulently  get  them 
through  the  custom-house,  and  pass  them  immediately  over  to  the  auc- 
tioneer. I  think  the  construction  of  that  section  may  be  that  the  auc- 
tioneer has  only  to  account  beyond  his  advances.  He  will  have  an  un- 
derstanding, always,  that  enough  shall  be  advanced  to  cover  value.  The 
section  I  think  came  from  the  case  recently  tried  in  Philadelphia.  It 
ought  not  to  remain  in  the  bill. 

I  have  not  had  leisure  to  take  up  your  letter  till  this  moment,  and  I  am 
now  so  much  pushed  for  time  to  get  it  off  by  this  mail,  I  am  not  sure  I 
have  made  myself  understood. 

I  send  you  a  copy  of  Judge  Hopkinson  in  the  Philadelphia  case. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Silas  Wright,  Jr.,  Senate,  Washington. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  6,  1840. 

Sir:  Mr.  Swaitwout  tells  me  he  has  got  up  110  entries  of  Bowen  &. 
Adams,  which  he  thinks  infected  with  fraud.  I  doubt  whether  you  could 
obtain  the  testimony  to  convict  him  of  perjury.  I  therefore  recommend 
that  you  proceed  under  the  66th  section  for  the  forfeiture.  I  think  I  would 
hold  him  to  bail  for  $15,000. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector.- 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Treasury  Department,  June  6,  1840. 
Sir  :  As  no  relief  can  be  afforded  in  the  case  of  the  markers,  submitted 
in  your  letter  of  the  oth  instant,  without  the  action  of  Congress,  the  subjects 


532 


Rep.  No.  689. 


will  be  immediately  presented  to  the  favorable  consideration  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Commerce  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  their  special 
and  early  attention  invited  to  the  matter. 

Does  not  this  case  furnish  another  reason  in  favor  of  rendering  the  num- 
ber of  those  officers  at  your  port  ? 

I  am,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 


Extract  of  a  letter  from  J.  Hoyt  to  the  Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury,  dated  Custom- House,  New  York,  June  10,  1840. 

I  also  send  you  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Appraiser  Mead,  under  date 
of  9th  instant,  by  which  you  will  perceive  that  he  thinks  the  appraisers' 
department  could  dispense  with  four  persons;  but  he  did  not  take  into  con- 
sideration the  fact  that  four  of  our  people  from  the  appraisers'  department 
will  have  to  be  absent — I  am  afraid,  for  a  good  part  of  the  summer,  or  at 
least  until  the  business  of  the  fall  importations  commences — as  witnesses 
in  Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  in  the  seizure  cases.  Four  of  them  are 
now  in  Baltimore,  and  as  soon  as  they  are  through  with  these  trials  they 
will  be  compelled  to  go  again  to  Philadelphia  ;  and  therefore  it  is  that  I 
hardly  think  it  expedient  to  meddle  with  the  force  in  the  appraisers'  de- 
partment. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  15,  1840. 

Sir:  Understanding  that  the  circuit  court  of  the  United  States  for  your 
district  has  affirmed  the  decree  of  the  district  court  forfeiting  a  quantity  of 
cloths  imported  into  the  district  of  New  York  by  James  Bottomley,  jr.,  it 
becomes  my  duty  to  inform  you  what  are  deemed  to  be  the  rights  of  the 
collector,  naval  officer,  and  surveyor  of  the  port  and  district  of  New  York 
in  relation  to  that  forfeiture. 

The  officers  last  named  are  advised  that,  by  the  provisions  of  the  91st 
section  of  the  act  of  March  2,  1799,  chapter  1 28,  the  moiety  of  the  proceeds 
of  that  forfeiture  belongs  to  them,  as  the  officers  of  the  district  and  port 
wTherein  the  forfeiture  was  incurred.  If  the  clerk  of  the  court  to  whom 
the  proceeds  of  the  forfeiture  is  to  be  paid  in  pursuance  of  the  provisions 
&c,  the  90th  section  of  the  same  act  elects  to  pay  to  you,  as  the  collector 
of  the  district  where  the  seizure  was  made.  You  will  have  the  goodness 
to  take  notice  that  I  claim  the  moiety  herein  before  referred  to  should 
be  paid  to  me,  to  be  distributed  according  to  law. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Geo.  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Collector,  Boston. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  18,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  send  you,  herewith,  a  copy  of  a  letter  I  this  day  received  from 
John  Cadwalader,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia,  stating  the  manner  in  which  he 


Bep.  JSTo.  669. 


523 


thinks  the  Bottomley  case,  in  Baltimore,  should  be  tried  ;  and  I  suppose 
the  same  rule  would  apply  to  the  case  here.  I  will  see  you  on  this  sub- 
ject this  evening,  and  I  now  only  write  to  ask  whether  you  think  I  had 
better  send  a  copy  of  the  elder  Bottomley's  deposition  to  Baltimore,  and, 
if  so,  be  pleased  to  ask  the  clerk  to  prepare  a  copy  forthwith. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq  , 

United  Slates  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  22,  1840. 

Sir  :  I  hand  you,  herewith,  an  open  letter  to  the  collector  and  district 
attorney  at  Boston,  and  to  Messrs.  Fletcher  &  Bartlett,  who  were  of  coun- 
sel for  the  United  States  on  the  trial  of  James  Bottomley,  jr. 's  goods. 

You  will  see,  by  the  letter,  the  object  of  your  mission.  It  is  important 
that  you  should  get  back  as  early  as  Wednesday  morning  with  the  papers. 

With  a  knowledge  of  your  enterprise  in  such  matters,  I  have  selected 
you  to  perform  this  duty. 

1  also  hand  you  a  letter  to  me,  from  the  collector  at  Boston,  on  this  sub- 
ject, and  also  a  receipt  of  Mr.  Mills,  the  district  attorney,  for  a  part  of  the 
papers,  together  with  a  printed  report  of  the  trial  of  Bottomley,  which  shows 
the  character  of  some  of  the  papers  referred  to. 

I  would  recommend  that  you  first  call  on  the  collector,  who,  no  doubt; 
will  assist  you  in  the  object  of  your  mission. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

George  Davis,  Esq., 

Deputy  Collector i  New  York, 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  22,  1840. 
Gentlemen  :  I  wrote  the  collector  at  Boston,  on  the  16th  instant,  for 
the  papers  belonging  to  this  office,  which  were  used  in  the  case  of  James 
Bottomley,  jr. 

I  received,  this  morning,  a  letter  from  the  collector,  stating  that  they 
could  not  be  obtained  but  by  an  order  of  court.  They  are  wanted  for  use 
in  a  trial  that  is  expected  to  commence  to-morrow  in  Baltimore.  I  have 
therefore  been  induced  to  despatch  Mr.  George  Davis,  one  of  the  deputies 
in  this  office,  to  see  if  they  cannot  be  obtained.  I  send  a  receipt  of  Mr.  Mills, 
the  district  attorney  for  a  part  of  the  papers.  I  am  under  the  impression 
that  there  are  some  not  included  in  that  receipt ;  for  instance,  I  think  you 
have  the  original  confession  of  Campbell,  the  former  deputy,  which  is 
much  wanted.  I  have  earnestly  to  beg  that  you  will,  individually  and 
collectively,  make  the  effort  to  deliver  the  papers  to  Mr.  Davis. 

I  cannot  understand  how  they  form  a  part  of  the  record,  so  as  to  make 
it  necessary  for  an  order  of  court  to  enable  you  to  return  the  papers  to  the 
place  from  whence  they  came,  and  where  they  belong.  If  all  of  them 
cannot  be  sent,  be  pleased  to  send  all  that  can  be  sent. 


534 


Rep.  No.  669. 


I  have  also  to  request  that  you  will  have  the  goodness  to  obtain  for  me 
a  certified  copy  of  the  record  in  that  case,  so  that  it  can  be  used  in  the  trial 
irs  Baltimore.  If  Mr.  Bancroft  will  pay  the  expenses,  I  will  send  it  to  him 
on  being  informed  of  the  amount. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

George  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Collector.  ) 
John  Mills,  Esq.,  Dist.  Attorney.    \  Boston 
Richard  Fletcher,  Esq.  j 
S.  Bartlett,  Esq.  J 


Custom-House,  New  York,  June  30,  1840. 
Sir  :  The  letter  of  Messrs.  Godfrey,  Patterson,  &  Co.,  dated  the  25tL 
instant,  directed  to  you,  and  by  you  forwarded  to  me,  I  received  this 
morning. 

In  relation  to  which  I  have  to  say — 

1st.  When  Congress  propose  to  alter  the  rate  of  duties,  the  law  does  not 
generally  take  effect  until  a  sufficient  time  has  elapsed  to  enable  the  mer- 
chants to  shape  their  orders  and  business  in  reference  to  the  change. 

2d.  The  present  tariff  has  been  made,  not  by  Congress,  but  by  mer- 
chants ;  and  whether  the  same  rule  ought  to  apply  in  the  latter  as  in  the 
former  case,  is  a  question  for  the  proper  consideration  of  the  law  makers. 

I  presume,  however,  that  the  merchants  consider  that  we  have  sanction- 
ed their  tariff,  and,  therefore,  if  we  undertake  that  made  by  Congress, 
they  are  entitled  to  have  the  usual  notice. 

The  sections  referred  to  are  not  wholly  declaratory  of  what  we  have 
considered  the  meaning  of  Congress  in  framing  prior  laws,  but,  to  a  great 
extent,  they  are  so;  and  whether  a  prospective  operation  should  be  given 
to  a  law  subsequently  declarative  in  its  character,  is  a  matter  perhaps  of 
doubt. 

Under  all  the  circumstances  of  the  present  bill,  I  am  inclined  to  think 
it  should  be  prospective — say  to  take  effect  on  1st  September  next.  This 
is  abundance  of  time,  considering  the  facility  of  intercourse  between  this 
and  Europe. 

I  return  you  the  letter. 

Respectfully, 


Hon.  Silas  Wright,  Jr., 

Senate ,  Washington,  D.  C. 


J.  HOYT,  Collector. 


Treasury  Department,  July  8,  1840. 
Sir  :  The  act  "  to  provide  for  the  collection,  safe  keeping,  transfer,  and 
disbursement  of  the  public  revenue,"  contains,  in  the  9th  section,  the  fol- 
low ing  provision  : 

"  That  all  collectors  and  receivers  of  public  money,  of  every  character 
and  description,  within  the  District  of  Columbia,  shall,  as  frequently  as 
they  may  be  directed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  or  the  Postmaster 
General  so  to  do,  pay  over  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  at  the 


Eep.  No.  669. 


Treasury  thereof,  all  public  moneys  collected  by  them,  or  in  their  hands  ; 
that  all  such  collectors  and  receivers  of  public  moneys  within  the  cities  of 
Philadelphia  and  New  Orleans  shall,  upon  the  same  direction,  pay  over 
to  the  treasurer  of  the  mints,  in  their  respective  cities,  at  the  said  mints, 
all  public  moneys  collected  by  them,  or  in  their  hands  ;  and  that  all  such 
collectors  and  receivers  of  public  moneys  within  the  cities  of  New  York, 
Boston,  Charleston,  and  St.  Louis,  shall,  upon  the  same  direction,  pay 
over  to  the  receivers  general  of  public  moneys,  in  their  respective  cities, 
at  their  offices  respectively,  all  the  public  moneys  collected  by  them,  or  in 
their  hands,  to  be  safely  kept  by  the  said  respective  depositaries,  until 
■otherwise  disposed  of  according  to  law;  and  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the 
said  Secretary  and  Postmaster  General  to  direct  such  payments,  by  the 
said  collectors  and  receivers,  at  all  the  said  places,  at  least  as  often  as  once 
in  each  week,  and  as  much  more  frequently,  in  all  cases,  as  they,  in  their 
discretion,  may  think  proper." 

You  will,  therefore,  as  soon  as  the  receiver  general  enters  on  his  duties 
at  New  York,  make  your  deposite  with  him  semi-weekly ,  (say  at  the  close 
of  Wednesday  and  Saturday,)  of  the  balance  of  all  money  by  you  collect- 
ed, not  needed  to  defray  the  current  expenses  of  collection,  debentures, 
drawback,  and  bounties,  payable  at  your  port. 

You  will  take  duplicate  certificates  of  the  amounts  deposited,  and  for- 
ward one  of  them  with  your  weekly  statement  of  receipts  and  expendi- 
tures, and  the  other  keep  as  a  voucher,  to  be  used  in  the  quarterly  settle- 
ment of  your  accounts. 

Respectively, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  . 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq.,  Collector,  fyc. 

P.  S.  The  outstanding  drafts  on  the  money  in  your  hands,  of  which  no- 
tice shall  have  been  given,  are  a  charge  on  it  to  their  amount ;  and  hence 
enough  will  be  reserved  to  meet  them,  when  you  make  your  first  deposite. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  14,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  enclose  to  you,  herewith,  copies  of  schedule  A  and  B,  of  papers 
sent  to  you  through  Mr.  Wasson,  on  the  6th  and  7th  April  last,  relative  to 
goods  under  seizure  here,  and  in  which  Oakeys  &  Robinson  are  claimants. 
J  also  enclose  a  copy  of  another  schedule  of  papers  pertaining  to  Robert 
Walker's  goods,  also  under  seizure  here,  and  were  sent  to  you,  per  Mr. 
Wasson,  on  the  9th  of  April. 

I  would  be  obliged  by  your  returning  the  papers  referred  to  as  soon  as 
practicable,  as  the  causes  are  to  be  tried  at  the  September  term  of  the  dis- 
trict court  in  this  city. 

You  can  have  them  again  if  necessary. 

Respectfullv, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

John  M.  Read,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 


536 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  August  14,  1840. 
Dear  Sir  :  1  have  your  letter  of  yesterday. 

You  must  change  the  place  of  examination  of  James  Shaw.  We  might 
as  well  appear  in  Bedlam  as  at  the  mayor's  office  in  this  city. 

Make  the  examination  to  take  place  at  the  office  of  G.  YV.  Matou,  dep- 
uty clerk  of  district  court,  whose  office  adjoins  Mr.  Butler's,  and  he  will 
attend  to  the  examination  for  me. 

We  have  never  gained  any  thing  by  a  cross-examination  of  witnesses  in 
England,  in  any  of  our  cases  in  this  city  ;  but  your  experience  may  have 
satisfied  you  that  something  is  to  be  gained  by  it. 

Your  own  knowledge  of  the  subject  will  suggest  to  you  the  proper  in- 
terrogatories, if  you  think  best  to  put  any.  Not  knowing  the  names  of  the 
witnesses  to  be  examined,  it  is  very  difficult  to  frame  cross  interrogatories 
with  any  hope  of  benefit. 

I  would  name  as  commissioners,  Albert  Davy,  American  Consul  at 
Leeds,  and  Mr.  Richard  Bell,  of  London. 

The  last-named  gentleman  was  a  witness  in  Baltimore,  and  volunteered 
to  serve  us  in  any  matters  connected  with  these  litigations  ;  and  he  stated 
that  he  would,  at  any  time,  go  to  the  cloth  district  at  our  request. 

It  would  be  well  to  apprize  John  R.  Ricard,  to  care  of  Coats  &  Co., 
London,  or  Crofts  &  Steele,  Manchester,  that  such  commissions  go  out, 
and  he  v\ould  give  you  the  history  of  the  witnesses.  Mr.  Davy  is  a  very 
clever  man.    Some  of  his  letters  to  me  you  have  in  Philadelphia. 

I  would  ask  the  witnesses  for  Buckley  to  whom  he  consigned  his  goods 
for  sale  in  this  country.    It  was  to  John  Taylor,  I  believe. 

1  do  not  think  that  I  have  ever  been  furnished  with  a  list  of  the  claim- 
ants to  the  goods  seized  in  Davies,  Broadbent,  &  Co.'s,  or  at  Brady's,  or  of 
the  vessel  in  which  they  were  imported. 

This  should  be  done  as  soon  as  possible,  that  I  may  get  up  the  papers 
with  the  view  of  throwing  all  the  light  upon  the  subject  I  can. 

I  return  you  the  interrogatories. 

Truly, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Jonx  M.  Read,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney,  Philadelphia. 


Custom -House,  New  York,  August  17,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  have  this  day  remitted  Thomas  Dennison,  Esq.,  of  Bristol,  Eng- 
land, $35  73,  for  expenses  incurred  by  him  in  executing  the  commission 
in  the  case  of  Masters,  Markoe,  &  Co.  I  do  not  know  how  I  am  to  reim- 
burse this  sum,  unless  you  put  it  in  your  bill  of  costs.  To  show  you  the 
amount  is  correct,  1  send  you  an  extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Dennison, 
under  date  of  the  24th  July  last.  Be  pleased  to  make  a  note  of  the  amount 
on  your  register. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


Rep.  No.  669. 


537 


Custom- House,  New  York,  August  IS,  1840. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  received  yours  of  the  30th  July  by  the  President,  late  last 
evening.  I  notice  what  you  say  in  regard  to  the  verification  of  invoices 
at  Liverpool  that  ought  to  be  verified  at  your  consulate.  We  occasion- 
ally, in  the  hurry  of  business,  omit  to  notice  irregularities  of  this  kind, 
but  we  endeavor  to  observe  the  rule  in  this  matter  with  pertinacity. 

I  will  set  a  strict  watch  on  the  invoices  of  Jackson,  referred  to  by  you, 
and  if  we  detect  it,  I  will  apply  the  proper  remedy.  I  am  aware  of  the 
frauds  in  this  respect,  and  I  leave  no  means  in  my  power  unapplied  to  de- 
feat the  object  sought  to  be  accomplished.  The  more  experience  I  have 
with  the  great  mass  of  the  trading  classes,  the  more  I  am  convinced  of  the 
necessity  of  watching  them. 

If  I  make  any  discoveries  in  the  matter,  I  will  apprize  you  of  the  re- 
sult. 

The  papers  from  your  side  1  notice  have  various  speculations  on  public 
affairs.  The  condition  of  the  crops  with  you  has  a  material  bearing  on  our 
business  affairs  here. 

The  accounts  are  so  contradictory  on  this  subject,  we  hardly  know  how7 
to  form  an  accurate  opinion.  We  have  then  the  rumor  of  some  heart 
business  between  England  and  France. 

In  your  future  letters  I  would  like  to  have  your  views  on  all  these  mat 
ters.  Whatever  interests  you,  on  the  other  side,  has  a  corresponding  in 
terest  here.  You  seem  to  be  a  calm  "looker  on  in  Venice,"  and  there 
fore  your  views  are  to  be  taken  with  more  confidence. 

I  do  not  know  whether  you  take  any  interest  in  the  politics  of  the  coun- 
try, but  if  you  do,  you  will  have  noticed,  by  the  newspapers  from  this 
side,  what  a  fierce  contest  is  now  going  on  as  to  the  election  of  President, 
wThich  is  is  to  take  place  in  the  month  of  November  next.  You  will  nat- 
urally imagine,  from  my  position,  what  my  opinions  would  be,  and  yet  1 
think  I  can  express  that  opinion  with  perfect  coolness.  The  friends  of 
the  present  administration  are  not  as  noisy  or  clamorous  as  the  opposition, 
but  we  have  no  doubt  of  the  triumphant  re-election  of  Mr.  Van  Buren. 

I  thank  you  for  the  postscript  in  regard  to  young  Lindsley.  . 

The  mail  by  the  steamer  is  about  to  close,  and  I  therefore  close  with 
the  expression  of  my  regard. 

J.  HOYT. 

Albert  Davy,  Esq.,  Leeds. 

P.  S.  The  Acadia  arrived  at  Boston  yesterday  morning.  J.  H. 


Custost-House,  New  York,  August  20,  1840. 
Sir:  0«  the  15th  June  last  I  addressed  you  a  letter  on  the  subject  of 
the  proceeds  of  the  forfeiture  of  the  goods  of  James  Bottomley,  jr.,  and  I 
am  reminded  that  1  have  received  no  reply  thereto,  by  a  letter  I  this  day 
received  from  the  naval  officer -of  this  port,  a  copy  of  which  is  on  the  other 
side. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Geo.  Bancroft,  Esq.,  Collector  ifC.y  Boston. 


538 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  August  31,  1840. 

Sir  :  In  pursuance  of  the  directions  of  your  letter  of  29th  instant  re- 
ceived this  day.  I  have  this  day  deposited  with  the  receiver  general,  to 
the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  $90,274  17,  being  the 
balance  standing  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  on  the  books  of  this  office, 
less  $1,900  88  for  five  several  drafts  drawn  by  the  Treasurer  on  me,  and 
which  will  be  paid  on  presentation,  some  of  which  have  been  paid  this 
day.  This  deposite  does  not  appear  on  the  account  with  the  Treasurer  this 
day  forwarded,  for  the  reason  that,  by  instructions,  that  account  must  close 
on  the  Saturday  of  each  week. 

The  remainder  of  the  outstanding  drafts,  being  only  three,  will  no  doubt 
appear  in  the  course  of  the  week,  and  perhaps  in  the  course  of  to-morrow, 
when  the  whole  amount  will  be  closed,  and  the  receipt  for  the  deposite  of 
ihis  day  will  be  forwarded,  a  voucher  to  accompany  the  account. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  1,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  this  day,  in  relation  to  the  application  for  a 
second  commission  in  the  case  of  Van  Wyck  &  Johnson. 

It  would  be  a  violation  of  all  rule,  that  after  a  party  has  tried  his  cause, 
and  ascertained  in  what  point  his  testimony  was  deficient,  to  permit  him  to 
take  a  commission  to  supply  the  defect.  It  would  open  the  door  to  per- 
jury and  fraud  to  such  an  extent  as  could  not  fail  to  alarm  the  court.  There- 
fore it  is  wholly  out  of  the  question. 

I  know  of  no  other  objections  but  of  a  legal  nature. 
I  return  you  the  affidavits  and  notice. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  Septe?nber  19,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  enclose  you  Mr.  Jackson's  letter,  and  also  a  copy  of  my  reply 
to  it.    You  should  not  call  me  as  a  witness  if  it  can  be  avoided,  as  in  that 
■case  my  share  of  the  forfeiture  I  lose. 

Respectfully, 

*  J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  September  24,  1840. 
Sir  :  In  answer  to  your  letter  of  the  22d  instant,  in  reference  to  a  com- 
mission in  the  case  of  nine  cases  of  cloths,  Oakeys  &  Robinson,  claim- 


Rep.  No.  G69. 


530 


ants,  as  representing  Robert  Walker,  I  have  to  say  that  I  am  under  the 
belief  that  Walker  is  not  the  owner  of  the  goods.  I  send  you  a  duplicate 
letter  from  Counsellor  Davy,  of  the  6th  of  April  last ;  also  an  original  from 
the  same,  dated  11th  April;  and  also  a  letter  from  the  Solicitor,  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Davy. 

The  prior  shipment  of  goods  by  Walker  no  doubt  belonged  to  Mr. 
Waite,  and  the  shipment  now  in  question  may  also  have  belonged  to  the 
same  person  ;  but  1  am  inclined  lo  think  jthey  leally  belonged  to  the  widow 
Stead,  in  whose  employ  Walker  formerly  was. 

I  sent  you,  on  a  former  occasion,  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Davy,  un- 
der date  of  February  27,  which  gave  some  account  of  Walker,  and  which 
letter,  I  believe,  stated  that  Waite  and  Walker  were  executors  of  Stead. 

A  gentleman,  recently  from  England,  informed  me  that  Walker  had 
substantially  ruined  Mrs.  Stead — that  he  had  failed,  owing  Mrs.  Stead 
a  large  sum  of  money. 

I  return  you  the  notice. 

Very  respectful)  v, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler1,  Esq., 

l  :.ded  States  Attorney. 


Custom -House,  New  York,  September  28,  1840.  " 
Sir:  I  now  send  you  the  following  papers  in  the  case  of  Biackburn  : 

1.  Entry  by  Koscoe  ; 

2.  The  invoice  ; 

3.  The  entry  and  invoice  by  the  Virginia  ; 

4.  His  original  examination,  which  will  be  necessary  for  you  to  use  in 
the  trial  of  his  seizure  case. 

I  would  like  to  confer  with  you  particularly  before  yon  make  any  argu- 
ment for  the  trial  of  the  cause. 

Respectfully. 

J.  HOVT.  Collector. 

B.  F.  Buti.er,  Esq., 

United  States  Attorney. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  October  5,  1840. 
Sir:  I  have  your  letter  of  the  21  instant,  asking  whether  so  lar^e  an 
amount  as  appears  in  the  return  of  the  30th  ultimo  is  required  for  the 
current  expenses  of  this  office,  in  answer,  I  have  to  say,  I  think  not. 
Although  that  amount  appears  to  he  on  hand,  ,  in  point  of  fact  the  ac- 
tual amount  is  not  near  so  large.  We  aie  always  compelled  to  disburse 
considerable  sums  of  money  at  this  office,  for  which  we  cannot  make  any 
regular  charge  to  the  United  States  until  the  business  for  which  the  ad- 
vance is  made  is  closed,  so  that  it  goes  regularly  through  the  accounts 
properly  verified.  We  make  the  effort  always  to  close  up  such  matters 
before  the  quarter  ends;  but,  at  the  present  perio<t,  we  have  an  unusual 
quantity  of  unsettled  accounts.  We  have  built  a  house  for  trie  keeper  at 
Sandy  Hook  light,  in  the  place  of  the  one  burnt  down,  and  have  not  yet 
passed  the  accounts  through  the  books,  though  we  have  paid  nearly  the 

go* 


540 


Sep.  No.  669. 


whole  cost  of  the  building.  The  exclusive  repairs  at  Sand's  point  is  sim- 
ilarly situated  ;  so  with  various  other  matters.  Our  pay  day  was  Wednes- 
day, the  30th,  and  we  made  the  deposite  with  the  receiver  early  that  morn- 
ing, without  entering  very  minutely  into  any  calculation  as  to  the  proba- 
ble receipts  of  the  day.  It  turned  out  they  were  much  larger  than  could 
have  been  anticipated,  and  not  as  much  disbursed  as  was  estimated  there 
would  be,  for  the  reason  that  many  of  the  officers  and  light-house  keepers 
did  not  call  that  day,  which  swelled  the  nominal  balance  to  an  amount 
much  larger  than  1  supposed  it  would  have  been,  which  led  me  to  a  per- 
sonal examination  of  its  correctness. 

The  balance  on  hand  to-day  is  larger  than  was  expected  it  would  be,  as 
the  receipts  ran  up  on  Saturday  beyond  the  calculation.  There  is  not  a 
bond  due  on  any  Monday,  I  believe,  for  the  whole  month  ;  and  cash  du- 
ties depend  principally  on  the  quantity  of  woollens  that  may  be  entered, 

I  shall  deposite  on  Wednesday  all  that  I  think  w  e  can  part  with. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Lkvi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New'  Yoek,  October  23,  1840. 
Sir  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  21st  instant,  in  relation  to  return  No.  43, 
under  date  of  the  1 7th  instant.  For  the  accommodation  of  the  receiver, 
we  make  the  deposites  as  early  in  the  morning  as  we  can  procure  the 
money  from  bank.  At  the  close  of  the  business  of  Tuesday  and  Friday, 
i.ve  ascertain  the  amount  to  transfer.  On  the  occasion  referred  to,  I  waa 
very  much  engaged  in  court  business,  and  i  directed  the  clerk  to  transfer 
(he  receipts  without  looking  to  see  what  was  to  come  in  for  the  day,  and 
it  .so  happened  that  the  receipts  were  unusually  large,  and  it  also  happen- 
ed that  the  auditor,  on  the  Monday  following,  was  very  late  in  preparing 
the  returns;  and  !  did  not  even  notice  what  the  balance  was,  when  1  sign- 
ed the  account  ,'or  1  should  have  explained  it  at  the  time.  The  difference 
4u  the  condition  of  this  office  at  this  time  and  when  I  kept  an  account  with 
the  Treasury  is  this:  I  hod  always  money  in  hand  to  the  credit  of  the 
Treasury  to  meet  drafts  which  had  not  been  presented,  and,  in  case  any 
demands  were  made  upon  the  office,  that  fund  was  resorted  to;  and  it  wa3 
almost  daily  resorted  to.  We  have  not  that  fund  now.  We  generally 
transfer  on  Wednesday  such  part  of  the  balance  appearing  on  the  preced- 
ing .return  «is  we  van  safely  spare.  We  cannot  at  all  times  tell  what 
amount  of  debentures  and  bounties  may  be  called  for,  though  yve  could 
tell,  by  examination  of  the  papers  in  the  office,  what  amount  was  due  ;  and 
the  same  thing  may  be  said  of  outstanding  orders  in  favor  of  collectors, 
and  the  surplus  deposites,  which  we  refund  daily,  but  which  are  not 
charged  to  the  United  States,  but  are  refunded  to  me  at  the  end  of  the 
nionih.  A  statement  of  all  this,  appended  to  the  returns,  yvould  be  much 
more  voluminous  than  the  returns  themselves.  We  can  form  no  calcula- 
tion as  to  the  amount  of  cash  duties  that  may  come  in  ;  and  for  the  last 
three  months  there  have  been  many  days  when  not  a  bond  fell  due,  and  it 
'  so  happens  that  not  a  bond  has  fallen  due  on  either  of  the  Mondays  of  the 
present  month. 


Sep.  No.  669. 


541 


For  another  reason,  we  cannot  tell  what  our  receipts  will  be  on  Satur- 
day, because  we  notice  the  bonds  due  on  Sunday  for  Saturday  ,  sometimes 
they  are  paid  on  Saturday,  and  sometimes  not  till  Monday.  It  has  never 
been  my  practice  to  send  the  bonds  due  on  Sunday  to  the  district  attor- 
ney until  Tuesday,  it  being  considered  but  a  fair  exposition  of  the  law 
and  instructions  to  allow  Monday  for  the  payment  of  bonds  falling  due  on 
Sunday.  I  am  obliged,  as  we  are  now  situated,  to  use  banks  to  collect 
checks  we  receive  ;  and,  as  I  desire  to  be  under  no  obligation  to  any  of 
them,  I  would  prefer  keeping  a  respectable  amount  rather  than  to  be  a 
burden  to  them,  as  they  furnish  the  bills  to  enable  me  to  pay  over  to  the 
receiver.  We  often  have  difficulty  in  getting  them.  The  business  of  the 
city  is  done  almost  entirely  by  checks  on  banks.  The  circulation  of  bank 
paper  would  be  wholly  inadequate,  and  it  sometimes  happens  that  we  have 
to  resort  to  several  banks  to  get  bills  enough  to  make  up  my  deposites  for 
the  receiver.  Until  we  get  into  the  new  building  where  money  can  be 
safely  kept,  I  know  of  no  other  way  to  do  the  public  business. 

Respectfully, 

J.  BOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Citstom-Hofse,  New  York,  October  30,  1840. 

Sir:  A  commission  is  to  go  out  by  the  steamer  President,  which  leaves 
on  the  2d  of  November,  directed  to  you,  for  execution  in  the  case  of  a 
seizure  of  some  cloths,  entered  by  Oakeys  and  Robinson  of  this  city,  but 
claimed  to  belong  to  Robert  Walker.  For  your  Government,  J  send  you 
a  copy  of  a  letter  addressed  to  me  by  B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  the  district"at- 
torney,  and  the  prosecuting  officer  of  the  United  States.  Jn  addition  to 
what  he  says  on  the  subject,  I  will  state  that  I  understand  Walker  got  the 
goods  from  Mrs.  Stead,  and  that  she  has  not  been  paid  for  them.  You 
have  the  right  to  call  before  you  any  witnesses  that  you  may  suppose  can 
give  you  any  information  on  the  matter. 

We  have  seized  the  goods  for  undervaluation..  They  have  been  put 
up  by  the  public  appraisers,  if  I  recollect  right,  about  25  per  cent,  above 
the  invoice,  which  forfeits  the  goods.  As  Walker  represents  himself  as 
the  purchaser,  the  great  question  to  be  determined  is,  whether  he  bought 
them  at  the  actual  price  named  in  the  invoice.  If  you  should  suspect  the 
integrity  of  any  of  the  persons  called  before  you  as  a  witness,  or  that  there 
was  any  private  bargain  or  understanding  in  relation  to  the  price  to  be  ac- 
tually paid  for  the  goods,  you  Can  call  any  person  before  you  to  testify  on 
the  subject. 

You  will  see  by  the  newspapers  from  this  country,  some  of  which  I  send 
you  by  the  President,  that  a  fierce  contest  is  going  on  for  the  election  of 
a  President.  To-day  the  election  is  held  in  two  States,  viz :  Ohio  and 
Pennsylvania  ;  the  former  will  vote  for  General  Harrison,  and  the  latter  for 
Mr.  Van  Buren.  On  Monday,  the  2d  of  November,  the  election  is  held 
in  about  a  dozen  States.  The  victory  is  claimed  by  both  sides,  but  f  think 
Mr.  Van  Buren  v%  ill  succeed. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT. 

'Albert  Davy,  Esq.,  Consul^  Lceds%  England. 


542 


Rep.  No."  G69. 


N  Custom-House,  New  York,  December  7,  18-10. 

Sir  :  I  understand  from  Mr.  Frazee,  the  superintendent  of  the  new 
eustd'm-house,  that  Mr.  Bowne,  mv  colleague  in  the  commission,  has  give:; 
notice  to  him  thai  his  services  will  be  dispensed  with  after  this  day.  Mr. 
Bowne,  some  days  since,  submitted  to  me  a  resolution  to  that  effect,  to 
be  spread  upon  the  minutes,  to  which  I  objected,  for  the  plain  reason  that 
the  building  was  not  completed,  and  many  things  were  required  to  be  done 
which  Mr.  Frazee  was  aione  competent  to  do;  and  I  was  therefore  sur- 
prised to  learn  that  Mr.  Bowne  has  taken  upon  himself  to  decide  when 
the  building  should  be  considered  as  completed.  [  had  a  conversation 
with  the  receiver  general  on  Friday,  and  he  does  not  consider  the  build- 
ing in  a  condition  lit  to  occupy.  I  have  called  at  Mr.  Bowne's  office  seve- 
ral times  to-day  in  the  hope  of  being  able  to  see  him  on  the  subject,  but. 
have  not  been  so  fortunate  as  to  find  him.  I  am  as  anxious  to  get  into  the 
building  as  Mr.  Bowne  is  to  have  me  go  in,  and  I  am  also  desirous  to  save 
all  expenses  practicable,  but  I  think  it  would  be  bad  economy  to  part  with 
Mr.  Frazee  at  this  time. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  YVoodeury,  Esq., 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Treasury  Department,  December  21,  1S40. 
Sir  :  The  House  of  Representatives  having  adopted  a  resolution  call- 
ing upon  this  Department  to  report,  among  other  things,  kk  in  what  specific 
matter,  whether  gold  and  silver,  or  notes,  or  certificated,  or  other  and 
what  evidences  of  deposite  or  credit,  all  or  any  of  the  revenue  has  been 
collected  and  actually  passed  from  the  hands  of  the  per  son  or  persons  from 
whom  the  same  was  due  to  the  hands  of  the  officer  or  officers  charged 
with  the  immediate  collection  thereof,  since  the  4th  of  July  last,  distin- 
guishing how  much  has  been  collected  and  paid  in  each  specific  matter  or 
medium  of  payment,  also  setting  forth  how,  and  in  what  places  or  offices, 
and  under  what  actual  or  personal  custody  and  keeping,  all  and  any  and 
each  portion  of  the  public  revenue,  moneys,  and  assurances  and  evidence 
of  debt,  or  obligation  of  debt,  have  been  kept  during  that  time,  and  how 
and  by  what  agencies  and  aid,  and  with  what  forms  and  process,  and  on 
what  terms  and  conditions  and  cost  of  exchange  and  transfer,  and  in  wha: 
specific  matter,  whether  gold  or  silver,  or  notes  or  certificates,  or  other 
and  what  evidences,  all  and  any  portion  have  been  disbursed  or  transfer- 
red," 1  have  to  request  that  you  will  furnish  me  with  a  statement  giving 
the  required  information,  with  respect  to  the  transactions  of  your  office. 

1  am,  sir,  &c. 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  tne  Treasury. 

g  Jesse  Hott,  Esq.,  Collector,  $c. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  30,  1840. 
Sib  :  I  have  your  letter  of  the  26th  instant,  accompanied  by  a  copy  of 


Rep.  No. 


543 


one  from  Mr.  Bowne  to  you,  und&r  date  of  25th  instant,  in  relation  to  the 
new  custom-house. 

I  now  send  you  a  letter  from  Mr.  Frazee,  giving  a  detail  of  things  yet 
remaining  to  be  done,  and  which  I  have  personally  inspected,  and  there- 
fore can  speak  with  knowledge  on  the  subject.  I  have  had  an  earnest 
desire  to  get  into  the  building  as  soon  as  possible,  to  stop  the  rent  of  the 
buildings  we  now  occupy  ;  but  it  seems  to  me  quite  improper  to  remove 
there  till  we  can  get  i  id  of  the  laborers  that  are  to  woik  upon  it  under 
the  contracts  referred  to  by  Mr.  Bowne.  You  will  see  there  is  a  great 
deal  to  be  done,  and  no  one  to  oversee  or  superintend  the  works  ;  and 
when  it  will  be  done,  under  such  a  state  of  things,  no  one  can  tell.  Several 
things  which  are  enumerated  by  Mr.  Frazee  as  necessary  to  do  are  as 
much  a  part  of  the  construction  as  the  foundation  wall,  and  yet  I  cannot 
get  Mr.  Bowne  to  take  any  notice  of  the  matter.  I  am  without  authority 
to  order  them  to  bje  done,  as  I  have  no  account  to  which  I  could  charge 
the  expense,  nor  do  1  feel  myself  at  liberty  to  purchase  coal  to  keep  up 
the  fires  in  the  building  for  the  same  reason.  My  opinion  is,  that  all  work 
and  materials  done  or  used  in  and  about  the  building,  until  it  is  actualty 
occupied  as  a  custom-house,  must  be  paid  out  of  the  appropriation  for  con- 
struction. 

Mr.  Bowne,  it  appears,  considers  the  building  "rather  dark,"  and  this 
certainly  must  be  admitted.  The  manner  of  making  it  less  dark  has  been 
heretofore  pointed  out. 

Since  writing  the  preceding,  I  have  received  a  letter  from  Mr.  Bowne, 
dated  this  day,  a  copy  of  which  I  send  you.  I  went  through  the  whole 
building  to-day  with  Mr.  Fleming,  the  auditor,  for  the  purpose  of  decid- 
ing in  what  apartment  we  would  place  the  old  papers,  to  the  end  that  we 
might  commence  removing  them.  We  both  concluded  that  it  would  not 
be  proper  to  put  the  papers  there  in  the  present  condition  of  the  building 

As  Mr.  Bowne  and  myself  do  not  seem  to  agree  in  opinion  on  this  ques- 
tion, I  beg  to  refer  to  Mr.  Vanderpoel  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
who  went  through  a  part  of  the  building  with  me,  and  who  will  be  able  to 
speak  from  his  own  observation.  i 

I  will  omit  to  speak  of  Mr.  Bowne's  letter  as  I  think  it  should  be  spoken, 
of,  because  it  might  be  deemed  unnecessary;  but  when  he  refers  to  what 
"  Mr.  Allen's  carpenters  that  fixed  his  rooms  "  could  do,  it  may  be  proper 
to  say  that  it  took  them,  as  I  understand,  about  a  week  to  put  up  the  room 
referred  to — about  fourteen  feet  of  counter  and  two  desks. 

Mr.  Bowne  is  no  doubt  anxious  to  get  us  into  the  building,  and  relieve 
himself  of  all  further  responsibility  about  it.  I  know  of  no  better  way  to 
complete  the  building,  so  that  it  could  be  occupied,  than  to  appoint  some 
competent  person  to  take  charge  of  it,  with  directions  to  do  all  that  is  ne- 
cessary to  do.  I  showed  Mr.  Bowne  Mr.  F  razee's  letter,  and  personally 
examined  the  matter  referred  to  by  him.  It  will  be  recollected  that  the 
building  is  all  iron  and  stone,  and  if  that  iron  is  not  perfectly  covered  with 
paint,  that  it  will  corrode,  ( and  it  has  done  so  to  a  considerable  extent, )  and 
hence  the  necessity  of  immediate  attention  being  given  to  it. 

It  is  very  unpleasant  for  me  to  differ  with  Mr.  Bowne  on  this  subject,  or 
to  trouble  you  with  subjects  about  which  you  ought  not  to  be  annoyed  ;  and 
nothing  but  a  sense  of  duty  would  induce  me  to  do  it.  I  will  only  add, 
that  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Frazee  on  this  subject  is  entitled  to  more  weight 
than  Mr.  Bowne's.    It  is,  however,  but  proper  to  observe,  that  Mr.  Fra- 


544 


Rep.  Xo.  669. 


zee's  pride  of  profession  might  induce  him  to  indulge  in  expenditures  that 
one  without  that  pride  would  not  recommend  ;  but  his  facts,  it  must  be 
admitted,  are  as  good  as  any  other  man's  facts,  and  it  is  only  these  facts 
that  1  intend  to  refer  to  in  this  communication. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  T reasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  December  31,  1840. 

Sir  :  1  have  your  printed  letter  of  the  21st  instant,  in  which  you  say  : 
"  The  House  of  Representatives  having  adopted  a  resolution,  calling  upon 
this  Department  to  report,  among  other  things,  i  in  what  specific  matter, 
whether  gold  and  silver,  or  notes  or  certificates,  or  other  and  what  evi- 
dences of  deposite  or  credit,  all  or  any  of  the  revenue  has  been  collected 
and  actually  passed  from  the  hands  of  the  person  or  persons  from  whom 
the  same  was  due  to  the  hands  of  the  officer  or  officers  charged  with  the 
immediate  collection  thereof,  since  the  4th  of  July  last,  distinguishing 
how  much  has  been  collected  and  paid  in  each  specific  matter  or  medium 
of  payment,  also  setting  forth  how,  and  in  what  places  or  offices,  and  un- 
der what  actual  and  personal  custody  and  keeping,  ail  and  any  and  each 
portion  of  the  public  revenue,  moneys,  and  assurances  and  evidences  oi 
debt,  or  obligation,  have  been  kept  during  that  time,  and  how  and  by  what 
agencies  and  aid,  and  with  what  forms  and  process,  and  on  what  terms  and 
conditions  and  cost  of  exchange  and  transfer,  and  in  what  specific  matter, 
whether  gold  and  silver  or  notes  or  certificates,  or  other  and  what  evi- 
dences, all  and  any  portion  thereof  have  been  disbursed  or  transferred.' " 
And  you  request  me  to  furnish  you  with  a  statement  giving  the  required 
information  with  respect  to  the  transactions  of  this  office. 

In  answer  to  that  request,  I  have  the  honor  to  state,  that,  in  order  to 
make  myself  more  fully  understood  in  the  details  I  shall  hereafter  sub- 
mit, it  is  proper  to  remark,  what  you  no  doubt  are  aware  of,  as  is  proba- 
bly the  House  of  Representatives,  that  the  receipts  and  payments  re- 
quired in  the  transaction  of  the  vast  business  of  this  city  are,  to  a  very 
great  extent,  accomplished  through  the  agency  of  checks  or  drafts  oa 
banks. 

Before  the  passage  of  the  law  in  question,  and  since  the  resumption  of 
specie  payments  by  the  banks  in  this  city  in  1838,  I  think  it  quite  safe  to 
say  that  nine-tenths  of  the  payments  at  this  olHce,  other  than  in  Treasury 
notes,  were  in  that  form.^ 

Such  checks  or  drafts  were  generally  certified  by  the  banks  on  which 
they  were  drawn  as  good,  which  in  law  was  deemed  to  bind  the  bank  for 
the  payment  of  the  check,  whether  the  drawer  had  the  money  in  bank  or 
not,  and  which  was  also  deemed,  to  all  legal  purposes,  the  same  thing  as 
the  notes  of  the  banks,  on  which  the  checks  were  drawn.  This  form  of 
doing  business  at  the  custom-house  greatly  facilitated  its  transaction,  and 
tended  to  prevent  errors  in  computation  and  provide  the  means  of  cor- 
recting the  same  when  they  did  happen,  as  well  as  guarding  to  a  great 
extent  against  losses  by  counterfeit  notes.  The  largest  portion  of  the 
daily  payments  at  the  custom-house  in  this  city  are  made  between  hall- 


Rep.  No.  669. 


545 


past  12  and  2  o'clock  of  the  day  ;  and,  consequently,  much  business  is  re- 
quired to  be  transacted  in  comparatively  a  short  space  of  time,  which  ne- 
cessarily exposes  us  to  the  commission  of  mistakes — which  exposure  would 
be  increased  in  proportion  to  the  variety  and  number  of  bank  bills  re- 
ceived. It  is  held  by  the  Treasury  Department,  however  harsh  it  may 
seem  and  really  is,  that  all  false  coins  or  counterfeit  notes  received  by  a 
collector,  are  his  personal  loss  ;  and  hence  all  prudent  measures  to  avoid  & 
risk  of  this  character  seemed  to  be  called  for. 

The  checks  received,  as  before  mentioned,  were  deposited  as  cash,  in 
bank,  at  3  o'clock  of  each  day.  On  Friday,  the  10th  of  July  last,  I  re- 
ceived official  notice  of  the  passage  of  the  law  referred  to  in  the  resolu- 
tion. I  immediately  prepared  and  caused  to  be  published  in  the  newpa- 
pers  of  this  city  a  notice,  of  which  the  following  is  a  copy  : 

"  NOTICE. 

u  Custom-House,  Collector's  Office, 

New  York,  July  10,  1840. 

"  The  undersigned  received  this  day  official  notice  of  the  passage  of  the 
act  entitled  4  An  act  to  provide  for  the  collection,  safe  keeping,  transfer? 
and  disbursement  of  the  public  revenue,'  approved  July  4,  1840;  the 
nineteenth  section  of  which  provides,  that,  after  the  30th  day  of  June, 
1840,  one-fourth  part  of  all  duties,  taxes,  sales  of  public  lands,  debts,  and 
sums  of  money,  accruing  or  becoming  due  to  the  United  States,  shall  be 
collected  in  the  legal  currency  of  the  United  States. 

"  By  other  provisions  of  the  same  act,  particular  forms  of  accounts  are 
required  to  be  kept ;  and,  in  order  to  make  suitable  arrangements  therefor, 
the  undersigned  will  not  be  able  to  comply  with  such  provisions  until 
Monday,  the  loth  instant,  and  he  therefore  gives  notice  that  on  and  after 
that  day  the  provisions  of  the  said  19th  section,  above  referred  to,  will  be 
enforced  at  this  office. 

«J.  HOYT,  Collector." 

About  the  same  time  I  received  your  instructions  to  make  deposites 
with  the  receiver  general  semi-weekly,  as  soon  as  he  should  enter  upon 
the  duties  of  his  office. 

Owing  to  unexpected  delays  in  procuring  books  for  the  use  of  this  office, 
and  in  making  arrangements  for  the  safe  keeping  of  the  specie  we  were 
required  to  receive,  I  did  not  commence  the  execution  of  the  law  at  the 
time  specified  in  the  notice  above  set  forth,  but  postponed  the  same  to  the 
20th  day  of  July.  In  the  mean  time  I  received  from  the  Department  a 
copy  of  the  law,  and  had  more  carefully  examined  its  provisions  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  my  own  duties  under  it,  and  how  those  duties 
could  be  best  performed  with  the  limited  means  in  my  power.  It  was 
then  supposed  that  we  should  be  able  to  get  into  the  new  custom-house 
by  the  1st  of  October,  where  safe  and  secure  vaults  were  in  the  course  of 
construction,  of  which  we  were  destitute  in  the  temporary  building  we 
then  occupied  and  still  occupy. 

Being  thus  destitute  of  any  secure  place  for  keeping  the  specie  i  was^ 
required  to  receive,  or  indeed  any  other  money,  1  was  forced  to  find  such 
place  elsewhere  until  the  new  custom-house  was  completed.    I  could  not 
procure  a  vault  in  any  bank,  of  which  I  could  have  sole  control ;  and  I  could 


546 


Sep.  No.  GG9. 


not  leave  the  specie  in  any  such  vault,  but  for  safe  keeping,  when  the 
bank  would  be  liable,  in  case  of  theft  or  other  casualty,  only  for  the  exer- 
cise of  ordinary  diligence,  upon  which  liability  1  did  not  wish  to  put  my 
own  protection.  ]  therefore  made  an  arrangement  with  the  bank  in 
which  1  then  kept  my  principal  deposites  to  set  aside  an  amount  of  specie 
which  would  be  equal  to  the  amount  1  should  icceive  the  intermediate 
days.  I  was  required  to  transfer  to  the  receiver  general,  and  to  pass  to 
my  credit  daily  in  a  separate  specie  accoun:,  the  amount  J  should  find  ne- 
cessary to  deposite. 

Having  made  this  arrangement  for  a  temporary  pui pose,  and  completed 
ether  necessary  arrangements,  1  commenced,  as  before  stated,  the  execu- 
tion of  the  law  referred  to  on  the  20th  July,  and  gave  directions  to  the 
cashier's  department  of  this  office  to  the  following  effect : 

1st.  That  Treasury  notes  were  to  be  considered  within  the  meaning  of 
the  law  as  "  legal  currency." 

2d.  That  for  all  dues  not-  paid  in  Treasury  rotes  one-fourth  must  be 
paid  in  specie. 

In  this  form  the  business  was  transacted  for  that  day,  when  at  three 
o'clock  I  found  that  it  required  four  persons  to  convey  the  specie  back  to 
Wall  street,  Irom  whence  it  came  in  the  course  of  the  day,  and  where,  for 
the  want  of  any  vault  in  the  custom-house,  it  was  necessary,  as  before 
stated  to  take  it  for  safe  keeping.  It  appeared  that  the  sending  of  a  large 
amount  of  specie  at  an  hour  of  the  day  when  the  banks  were  about  to 
close  was  attended  with  much  inconvenience  and  exposed  me  to  further 
hazards  of  mistakes,  as  the  count  of  the  specie  at  the  bank  could  not  be 
reported  to  me  until  the  next  day.  It  therefore  seemed  unavoidable  that 
some  method  should  be  adopted,  until  we  could  get  into  the  new  custom- 
house, to  avoid  some  of  the  accumulated  lisks  and  the  unnecessary  trans- 
portation of  specie.  ' 

I  accordingly  gave  a  further  direction  to  the  cashier's  department,  that, 
if  a  person  who  had  a  bond  to  pay  would  leave  a  check  for  the  specie 
portion  thereof,  certified  by  the  bank  on  which  it  was  drawn  that  the  per- 
son drawing  the  same  had  the  specie  in  bank,  we  would  collect  that  specie 
by  or  before  3  o'clock  of  that  day,  and,  when  so  collected,  the  bond  should 
be  surrendered.  This  practice,  to  some  extent,  was  adopted  ;  and,  in  all 
cases  of  receiving  such  checks,  the  specie  was  placed  to  the  credit  of  my 
specie  account  in  bank  the.  same  day.  Tire  directions  thus  given,  so  far 
as  I  know  or  believe,  have  been  pursued  from  the  said  20th  July  to  the 
present  time.  The  great  variety  of  duties  devolving  on  me,  in  the  general 
supervision  of  the  office,  renders  it  wholly  impossible  that  I  could  per- 
sonally receive  or  disburse  the  moneys  collected  or  paid  out  ;  but  I  think 
I  should  have  known  if  my  directions  in  this  respect  had  not  been  pursued. 

The  arrangement  heretofore  referred  to,  for  the  receipt  and  safe  keep- 
ing of  the  specie,  was  considered  of  so  temporary  a  nature,  that  I  did  not 
deem  it  necessary  to  consult  you  on  the  subject,  or  to  apprize  you  what 
that  arrangement  was.  It  has  been  a  source  of  great  regret  to  me  that 
we  have  been  so  much  disappointed  in  being  kept  out  of  the  new  custom- 
house so  much  longer  than  was  anticipated.  The  causes  of  that  disap- 
pointment you  have  been  apprized  of  in  other  communications. 

After  the  receiver  general  entered  upon  the  duties  of  his  office,  I  paid 
over  to  him,  in  pursuance  of  your  directions,  the  amount  standing  to  the 
credit  of  the  Treasury  on  the  books  of  this  office — which  payment  was  in 


Sep.  No.  G69„ 


547 


bills  of  specie- paying  backs;  and  from  the  time  he  entered  upon  his  du- 
ties I  have  paid  to  him,  semi-weekly,  to  the  present  time,  one-fourth  in 
gold  or  silver  coin,  and  three-fourths  in  bills  of  specie-paying  banks,  pur- 
suant to  the  directions  from  you  heretofore  referred  to. 

For  all  payments  lequired  by  law  to  be  made  by  me,  I  have  from  said 
20th  day  of  July  made  the  same  one-fourth  in  coin  and  three-fourths  in 
paper  of  specie-paying  banks. 

Small  payments  continue  to  be  made  in  the  same  way  ;  but,  as  before 
stated,  we  have  no  means  of  keeping  a  large  amount  of  specie  at  the 
building  we  now  occupy  as  a  custom-house,  and  the  inconvenience,  delay, 
;md  risk  of  bringing  large  sums  from  the  bank  would  be  great  for  large 
payments,  and  therefore  specie  checks  the  amount  of  one-fourth  and  an 
ordinary  check  for  three-fourths  are  now  commonly  used.  It  may  be 
proper  to  add,  that  most  of  the  payments  so  made  are  to  merchants  for 
drawbacks,  bounties,  &c,  all  of  whom  keep  accounts  with  banks  and 
make  their  own  payment  by  checks,  and  deposite  therein  what  specie  they 
receive. 

In  the  preceding  statement  I  believe  I  have  given  the  information 
called  for  with  respect  to  the  transactions  at  this  office. 

if  any  thing,  however,  should  be  omitted,  I  will,  upon  a  suggestion  to 
that  effect,  give  such  further  details  as  may  be  required. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector.. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  18,  2  840. 

Sir:  I  enclose  you  the  invoice,  entry,  and  appraisement,  in  the  case  of 
Levy.  Both  Messrs.  Cairns  and  Lounsbury  will  positively  state  that  his 
goods  were  as  different  from  Wood,  Johnson,  &  Burritl's,  as  night  from  day  • 
and  Mr.  Levy's  testimony  was  to  the  contrary,  I  am  for  making  an  ex- 
ample of  our  brother  Christian. 

Mr.  Lounsbury  was  in  court  and  heard  his  testimony,  but  had  not  sense 
enough  to  tell  you  the  facts.  That  such  accumulated  acts  of  roguery 
should  go  "unwhipt  of  justice/'  is  too  much  for  human  flesh  and  blood  to 
hear. 

Yours,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector \ 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  6,  1S41. 
Sir:  I  endorsed  my  appearance  this  morning  on  a  capias  at  the  suit  of 
Thomas  Armstrong,  a  copy  of  which  I  enclose  you     It  relates  to  the 
question  of  duties  on  wool,  the  particulars  in  relation  to  which  I  will  send 
you  in  due  time. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  Counsellor  at  Law. 


548 


Rep.  No.  669. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  8,  1841. 

Sir  :  Before  I  can  put  the  furniture,  if  I  had  it  to  put,  i»  the  circular 
room  in  the  new  custom-house,  which  is  designed  for  the  collector  and 
his  clerks,  it  is  necessary  to  have  an  iron  railing  around  the  whole  circle. 
It  is  more  than  one  month  since  I  went  with  the  principal  officers  in 
this  department  to  examine  the  room,  for  the  purpose  of  deciding  how  the 
desks  should  be  placed,  so  as  to  secure  sufficient  space  for  the  clerks  and 
the  people  who  should  be  brought  there  to  transact  business.  We  came 
to  the  conclusion  that  it  would  be  necessary  to  place  the  clerks  within  the 
circle,  leaving  a  proper  space  for  those  who  came  to  do  business  outside, 
and  we  should  be  under  the  necessity  of  occupying  the  recesses  between 
the  two  small  rooms  on  each  side  of  the  building,  in  order  to  find  suffi- 
cient room  for  the  appropriate  desks. 

The  railing,  therefore,  you  will  perceive,  is  indispensable  ;  and  it  would 
be  under  any  arrangement  that  could  be  proposed,  having  in  view  the  best 
disposition  of  the  space  allotted  to  us. 

1  requested  Mr.  Frazee  to  make  a  drawing  of  the  proper  pattern  for  such 
railing,  before  or  about  the  time — I  think  before  he  leceived  your  notice 
dispensing  with  his  further  services.  I  now  understand  that  he  has  not 
completed  that  drawing,  and  that  no  preparations  have  been  made  to  pro- 
cure the  railing. 

I  consider  it  your  province,  as  the  acting  commissioner  for  erecting  the 
building,  to  procure  this  to  be  done,  and  that  it  is  as  much  a  part  of  the  con- 
struction of  the  building  as  the  railing  on  Nassau  street ;  and  it  is  there- 
fore that  I  beg  to  ask  your  immediate  attention  to  this  subject. 

I  have  no  authority  to  make  any  contracts  in  this  respect,  and  no  funds 
would  come  into  my  hands  to  liquidate  such  contracts,  if  I  did  make  them  ; 
and  hence  i  address  myself  to  you,  with  whom  I  consider  the  responsibil- 
ity as  resting  for  any  present  delay  in  the  occupancy  of  the  new  custom- 
house. 

I  communicated  to  you  verbally,  a  few  days  since,  several  other  things 
which  I  thought  required  to  be  done,  which  I  hope  you  will  cause  to  be 
accomplished  with  as  little  delay  as  possible. 

Verv  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Walter  Bowne,  Esq., 

Commissio?ier  of  the  New  Custom- Home,  New  York. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  12,  1841. 
Sir:  In  my  interview  with  you  this  day  at  the  new  custom-house,  in 
company  with  several  of  the  officers  in  the  department,  I  expressed  to 
you  my  full  concurrence  in  the  plan  you  suggested  for  completing  the  cir- 
cular room  intended  for  the  occupancy  of  the  collector.  Though  I  dif- 
fered at  this  interview  in  opinion  with  some  of  the  officers  referred  to,  a 
part  of  whom  accompanied  me  on  the  occasion  mentioned  in  my  letter  ot 
the  8th  instant,  when  we  supposed  wTe  had  fixed  upon  the  best  plan,  yet 
it  is  due  to  you  to  say,  in  the  frankest  manner,  that  I  think  your  mode  of 
arrangement  is  the  best;  and  I  have  therefore  to  request  that  you  will 
lose  no  time  in  carrying  your  proposed  plan  into  effect.  It  is  proper  also 
for  me  to  say,  in  connexion  with  this  request,  that  I  do  not  feel  myself  a: 


Rep.  Xo.  669. 


549 


liberty  to  call  upon  any  one  else  to  complete  the  building  for  occupancy  ; 
for  the  reason  that  you  took  upon  yourself  to  discharge,  without  my  con- 
sent, or,  so  far  as  I  recollect,  my  knowledge,  the  architect  and  all  other 
persons  employed  by  the  "  commissioners,"  before  the  building  was  pre- 
pared for  such  occupancy,  and  from  which  I  have  a  right  to  inlerthat  you 
will  personally  devote  your  services  to  its  speedy  completion. 

While  I  was  attending  you  in  the  interim  referred  to  this  day,  you 
handed  me  your  letter  dated  the  9th  instant,  in  which  you  say  that  you 
'*  cannot  but  feel  regret  that  you  (I)  have  not  long  since  moved  into  the 
new  building." 

If  you  had  limited  your  "  regrets"  to  the  fact  that  the  building  has  not 
yet  been  fit  for  occupancy,  1  could  have  joined  you.  The  expression  of 
your  opinion,  that  it  is  in  a  condition  to  be  occupied,  is  against  that  o* 
every  other  sensible  man  in  the  community ;  and  1  do  not  think  your  re- 
ference to  the  bank  which  you  occupied,  while  carpenters  and  masons 
were  at  work  in  it,  proves  any  thing  in  point  on  this  question  ;  and  the 
suggestion  that  the  building  has  cost  too  much,  and  that  too  much  time  has 
been  spent  in  the  construction,  fail  equally  in  proving  that  it  is  now  fit  to 
be  occupied.  If  you  intend  by  your  "  regrets"  that  it  has  not  already 
been  occupied  to  cast  any  censure  upon  me,  I  must  be  permitted  to  say 
that,  in  my  judgment,  the  blame  rests  with  you,  and  not  on  me.  1  have 
not  been  the  cause  of  the  consumption  of  either  time  or  money. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Walter  Bowne,  Esq., 

Commissioner  New  Custom-House,  New  York. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  13,  1841. 

Sir  :  Treasury  notes  have  come  in  very  heavy  to-day.  We  have 
taken  $18,G09  22. 

An  instance  of  this  kind  happened.  A  gentleman  went  to  the  cashier's 
office  to  pay  a  cash  duty  of  over  $3,000 ;  but  his  check  was  not  certified^ 
and  the  cashier  refused  to  take  it.  He  went  to  the  bank  to  get  it  certi- 
fied, and  returned  bringing  Treasury  notes  to  the  amount  of  $3,000. 

The  check  was  on  the  National  Bank,  and  it  paid  out  the  Treasury 
notes.  All  the  banks  who  hold  these  notes,  I  understand,  go  out  and  in- 
quire who  have  payments  to  make  at  the  custom-house. 

The  day  has  been  very  stormy  ;  but,  notwithstanding,  four  lighters  have 
come  up  from  the  Carrick,  bringing  with  them,  I  believe,  all  the  goods 
that  had  been  landed  on  the  beach.  There  are  a  good  many  woollens,  I 
understand. 

The  surf  yesterday  was  very  favorable  for  getting  the  goods,  but  the 
storm  to-day  I  fear  will  have  a  bad  effect. 

i  am,  &c. 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Wtoodeury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


1 


550  Rep.  No.  669. 

[PKR   SHIP  WHITSET.] 

Custom-House,  New  York,  January  14,  1341.  jl 
Gentlemen  :  By  some  accident  or  other, your  letter  of  the  2d  NoveinB 
ber  did  net  reach  me  as  soon  as  it  should;  but  ]  now  hasten  to  reply  bfl 
sending  you  the  first  of  a  bill  lor  £52  10,  the  amount  you  claim  againjjl 
me,  drawn  by  Messrs.  Christmas,  Livingston,  &  Prime,  on  Messnjn 
Sanderson  &  Co.,  London.  I  will  send  you  the  second  by  the  nesjl 
packet. 

Thanking  vou  for  your  attention,  1  remain,  &c. 

J.  HOYT.  I 

Messrs.  Humphreys,  Cunliffe,  Chai/wood,  &  Berg. 

[PER   SHIP  COLUMBUS.] 

January  16,  1841.  I 

P.  S.  I  send  now  the  second  of  the  bill  referred  to  in  the  original 
letter. 

Respectfully, 

J.  KOYT. 

Messrs.  Humphreys,  Cunliffe  &  Co., 
Manchester,  England. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  19,  1841, 
Gentlemen:  1  received  your  letter  this  morning  of  the  16th  instant 
in  relation  to  the  case  of  Wood,  claimant  of  certain  cloths,  tried  in  youi 
district,  the  record  in  relation  to  which  has  been  taken  by  writ  of  erroi 
to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  1  wrote  Mr.  Williams  th< 
same  day  your  letter  bears  date  the  conclusion  to  which  we  had  arrived 
at  here ;  since  which  I  have  learned  that  the  informers  in  Philadelphia, 
who  are  interested  in  the  question  to  be  decided  in  the  case  that  goes 
from  your  district,  have  employed  Mr.  Cadwalader  tp  assist  the  Attorney 
General  in  the  argument.  I  do  not  contribute  any  thing  towards  that  ex- 
pense, for  I  have  already  been  put  to  sucb  heavy  expenses  that  I  had 
made  up  my  mind  to  go  no  further  in  that  respect.  I  will  repeat  what  l| 
said  to  Mr.  Williams,  in  the  letter  referred  to,  that  I  should  be  glad  of  aj 
copy  of  the  record,  that  I  may  look  at  the  matter  and  prepare  such  briefi 
for  the  Attorney  General  as  my  feeble  abilities  would  allow. 

Verv  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT. 

Nathaniel  Williams,  and  )  „  7.. 

Bn    tt  >  Baltimore. 

.  C  Howard  Lsqs.,  ) 


Custom-House,  3&ew  York,  January  21,  1841. 
Sir  :  Enclosed  I  hand  you  a  narrative  at  suit  of  George  Willison,  in  the 
superior  court,  which  was  served  on  me  this  day,  and  request  that  you  will 
take  charge  of  the  defence  of  the  same. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

B.  F.  Butler,  Esq.,  New  York. 


Kep.  "No.  669.  551 

Custom-House,  New  York,  January  22,  1841. 
Sir  :  I  enclose  you,  herewith,  a  copy  of  a  circular  from  the  Comptrol- 
er,  under  date  of  the  19th  instant,  exempting  gunny  clolh  or  bags  and 
worsted  plush  from  duty. 

You  will  perceive,  on  reference  to  the  circular,  that  your  opinion  is  re- 
quisite in  the  matter;  and, as  1  am  called  on  to  refund,  1  would  be  obliged 
o  you  for  that  opinion  at  your  earliest  convenience.  We  had  no  trial  in 
eference  to  the  duty  on  gunny  cloth  in  this  district,  but  the  worsted  plush 
:ase  you  have  tried  twice,  and  it  is  lor  you  to  say  whether  we  can  vary 
he  result  on  that  article  if  tried  again. 

Respect  fully, 


E.  F.  Butler,  Esq., 

United  States  District  Attorney. 


IiOYT,  Collector, 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  23,  1841. 
Sir  :  I  deposited  this  morning  with  the  receiver  general,  to  the  credit 
)f  the  United  States,  the  sum  of  $.35,000. 

The  Treasury  notes  taken  aie  as  follows,  viz: 
January  20th    .       -  -  -  8511, 196  12 

January  21st  -  -  -  -  -  3,251  56 

Knuary  22d  ....  -  C,359  63 


30,807,31 


1 

taf 

voi 

A  gentleman  had  to  pay  about  $  1 ,300  of  bonds  to-day,  and  he  had 
Treasury  notes  for  $3,100.  To  exhaust  the  amount,  he  bought  tUe  notes 
vfi  Ive  had  given  out  to  other  persons  of  bonds  payable  to-day,  and  proposed 
o  take  up  his  neighbors'  bonds  also.  1  decided  that  1  could  not  permi! 
s05l.his;  that  I  had  no  right  to  deliver  the  bonds  of  one  person  to  a  third 
m  jarty  who  had  no  connexion  with  it ;  and  that  he  had  a  right  to  sell  his 
Treasury  notes  to  his  friends  who  could  come  and  take  up  their  own 
bonds  with  them.  He  replied,  that  he  should,  in  that  case,  be  compelled 
o  lose  upon  them.  This  did  not  alter  the  case  in  my  opinion,  and  I 
hereiore  adhered  to  that  decision.  1  state  it  to  you  lest  you  may  see 
'"•oniething  said  in  the  newspapers  on  the  subject,  as  this  is  the  me- 
dium through  which  complaints  are  very  apt  to  be  made,  and  also  that 
feu  may  have  the  opportunity  to  revoke  the  decision  if  you  think  it 
should  be  changed.  The  commercial  news  by  the  Boston  steamer  is  (as 
he  phrase  runs)  ua  shade  belter." 

1  learn  that  the  Liverpool  packet  that  sailed  on  the  1st  instant  has  a 
freight  list  ol  £1,700,  which  is  the  largest  of  the  season. 

Very  respectfully, 

j:  HOYT,  Collector. 
Hon.  Levi  Woodbury,  Secre/aru  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  January  29,  1841. 
Sip.  :  1  have  your  letter  of  the  27th  instant,  covering  a  copy  of  one 


Rep.  No.  669. 


from  the  First  Comptroller  to  you  under  date  of  25th  instant,  in  relation 
to  the  suspended  items  in  the  account  current  of  the  30th  September, 
2840.  That  officer  says  that  "  the  three  first  items  were  finally  acted 
upon  and  rejected  by  this  office  on  the  23d  of  December,  and  of  which 
the  collector  was  advised  by  letter  bearing  that  date,  and  which,  it  is  pre- 
sumed, must  have  reached  the  collector  on  or  before  the  31st  of  Decem- 
ber." There  was  no  need  for  indulging  any  presumption  on  the  subject. 
I  received  the  letter  referred  to  by  him  on  the  26th  of  December,  and  I 
prepared,  as  soon  as  I  could  obtain  the  leisure  time,  an  answer  to  it,  which 
I  transmitted  under  date  of  the  30th  of  that  month — a  copy  of  which  I 
now  send  you.  As  1  am  apprehensive  that  you  may  not  have  been  put 
in  possession  of  all  that  has  passed  on  this  subject  between  the  account- 
ing officers  and  myself,  I  beg  to  give  a  history  of  the  controversy  from  its 
origin  to  the  present  tin  e,  without  troubling  you  with  copies  of  the 
voluminous  correspondence,  which  may  be  found,  no  doubt,  on  file  in  the 
Comptroller's  office. 

1st.  In  November,  1838,  when  Mr.  Underwood,  from  the  First  Audi- 
tor's office,  came  to  this  city  to  examine  the  accounts  of  my  predecessor 
in  office,  I  was  about  preparing  my  accounts  to  transmit  to  the  office  he 
represented  on  this  occasion  ;  and,  in  the  course  of  a  casual  conversation 
in  reference  to  my  accounts,  he  referred  to  a  case  decided  by  Judge  Story, 
wherein  Pearce  and  the  United  States  were  parties,  which  had  been  adopted 
by  the  Treasury  Department  as  a  rule  for  its  government,  and  which  allowed 
a  collector  a  year's  compensation  from  the  fund  appropriated  to  his  pay- 
ment, though  such  collector  might  not  have  been  in  office  the  whole  year. 

2d.  I  assumed  that  this  information  was  correct,  and  I  caused  my  ac- 
counts of  fees  and  emoluments  to  be  made  out  for  that  year  within  40 
days  from  the  31st  December,  upon  the  basis  of  what  I  supposed  was  the 
law  of  the  Department,  without  looking  to  the  decision  referred  to  with 
any  special  attention.  The  accounts  were  audited  in  due  course,  and  a 
statement  from  the  Department  was  sent  back,  which  repudiated  the  prin- 
ciple I  had  understood  to  be  the  true  one  upon  the  authority  of  the  deci- 
sion referred  to. 

3d.  This  led  me  to  an  investigation  of  the  subject,  when  I  was  satisfied 
that  the  emolument  account,  as  it  is  commonly  called,  was  made  out  upon  a 
wrong  view  of  the  law  applicable  to  the  subject.  I  accordingly  address- 
ed a  fetter  to  the  Comptroller,  under  date  of  the  14th  November,  1839, 
requesting  him  to  return  me  the  account,  to  enable  me  to  amend  it  in  con- 
formity to  what  I  considered  to  be  the  law.  He  replied,  that  I  might 
send  a  supplemental  account,  indicating  my  views.  I  sent  that  supple- 
mental account  on  the  21st  day  of  that  month,  having  given  in  my  letter 
of  the  14th  full  explanation  of  my  understanding  of  the  law  upon  which 
the  correctness  of  that  supplemental  account  depended. 

4th.  I  forwarded  the  account  of  the  same  name  for  the  year  1839, 
made  out  upon  substantially  the  same  principle  as  that  of  ln38,  to  the 
First  Auditor,  on  the  1st  day  of  February,  1840,  verified  according  to  the 
provisions  of  the  act  of  2d  March.  1799. 

5th.  Having  received  no  reply  in  relation  to  this  matter,  I  caused  en- 
tries to  be  made  on  the  books  of  this  office  in  the  beginning  of  April, 
1840,  of  the  transaction,  so  as  to  introduce  the  subject  into  the  regular 
accounts  of  the  customs,  to  the  end  that  it  might  receive  such  aciion  as  to 
place  the  rights  of  those  interested  in  the  proper  form  of  adjustment. 


Eep.  No.  669, 


553 


6th.  On  the  10th  of  August,  1840,  I  received  a  communication  from 
the  Department  on  the  subject,  to  which  I  immediately  replied,  where 
the  affair  rested  till  I  received  the  letter  from  the  Comptroller,  before  re- 
ferred to,  under  date  of  23d  of  December  last. 

The  preceding  is  a  brief  history  of  the  case,  and  from  which  you  will 
see,  whatever  may  be  the  result,  that  I  came  into  the  conflict  from  an  im- 
pression, founded  on  good  evidence,  that  the  rule  of  the  Department  had 
been  changed  in  my  case  as  the  first  one,  since  the  decision  of  Judge 
Story  in  1837,  and  that  the  present  condition  of  my  accounts,  in  this  re- 
spect, is  owing  to  a  mature  investigation  into  the  right  of  the  First  Audi- 
tor to  alter  the  first  emolument  account  I  presented  to  him.  You  will 
also  see  that  this  is  not  a  new  question  raised  to  answer  a  temporary  ob- 
ject, but  that  the  facts  stated  carry  in  themselves  evidence  of  the  sincer- 
ity of  my  belief  in  the  soundness  of  my  position.  It  has  been  my  misfor- 
tune to  differ  with  you,  in  reference  to  our  respective  rights  and  duties, 
under  the  laws  which  we  are  alike  bound  to  obey,  from  my  first  entrance 
into  office,  commencing  with  the  power  of  appointing  to  office,  and  end- 
ing with  the  question  of  a  bond  under  the  act  of  July  4,  1840.  In  most 
of  the  cases  my  views  have  been  sustained,  and  I  have  the  satisfaction  of 
believing  that  I  have  been  right  in  all  of  them. 

With  these  preliminary  remarks,  I  will  answer  inquiries,  which  were  : 

"  1st.  Whether  I  have  deposited  the  amount  referred  to  with  the  re- 
ceiver general  ? 

"2d.  If  not,  state  my  reasons  for  not  doing  so  ?" 

To  the  1st  question,  I  answer  in  the  negative. 

To  the  second  I  have  to  say — 

1st.  That  I  entertained  no  shadow  of  doubt  as  to  my  legal  right  to  the 
fund  in  question.  If  it  is  not  manifest,  on  the  argument  which  1  have 
already  submitted,  additional  strength  may  be  added  to  my  views  of  the 
construction  of  the  law  by  reference  to  the  act  of  1789  and  of  1790,  to 
which  may  be  traced,  the  first  oiigin  of  the  distinction  between  "fees 
and  per  centage  " — in  other  acts,  "  fees  and  commissions,"  the  latter  word 
having  by  subsequent  laws  settled  down  into  the  term  "emolument." 

2d.  The  question  at  issue  is  not  one  of  new  accounts.  There  is  no 
dispute  about  items  or  amounts.  These  have  been  furnished,  asd  that 
under  oath,  (the  only  accounts  required  to  be  furnished  under  oath;)  and 
the  question  and  the  only  question  involved  is  a  legal  one,  and  that  is  to 
whom  does  the  fund  belong.  I  have  supposed,  and  still  suppose,  that,  if 
the  item  is  taken  out  of  the  general  account  current,  and  the  money  paid 
over  as  required,  this  would  be  an  end  of  the  question,  and  that  it  could 
not  thereafter  be  raised  ;  and  I  had  also  supposed  that  the  Comptroller  had 
appreciated  the  justice  and  importance  of  this  view  of  the  case,  as  present- 
ed by  me  in  the  letter  to  him  of  the  30th  December,  before  referred  to,  and 
that  the  idea  of  moving  for  execution  before  trial,  especially  as  competent 
bail  had  already  been  put  in,  was,  from  these  considerations,  abandoned. 

3d.  I  did  consider,  and  continue  to  consider,  it  to  be  my  duty  to  adhere 
tenaciously  to  all  my  legal  rights,  from  the  position  in  which  the  account- 
ing officers  have  put  me  in  another  respect.  I  will  explain  this.  In  my 
accounts  of  the  4th  quarter  of  1838,  I  presented,  among  other  accounts, 
that  of  "fines,  penalties,  and  forfeitures,  made  up  upon  the  principle  on 
which  such  accounts  have  been  made  up,  as  I  understand  and  believe, 
from  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  and  the  first  revenue  act  under  it. 


554 


Rep.  No.  669. 


I  had  distributed  the  funds  appertaining  to  that  account  in  conformity  to 
that  principle,  and  the  same  was  regularly  audited  and  passed  by  the  ac- 
counting officers.  Further  distributions  were  made  upon  the  same  prin- 
ciple, and  in  the  next  quarter's  account  the  officers  alluded  to  changed 
the  principles.  I  remonstrated  against  that  change,  amd  cited  their  own 
acts  as  a  proof  of  the  correctness  of  my  accounts,  and,  as  a  convenient 
mode  of  disposing  of  that  argument,  they  went  back  to  the  accounts  of 
1838,  and  altered  it  to  conform  to  the  new  light  which  had  broke  in  upon 
them,  and  I  was  left  to  get  back  the  money  1  had  paid  out  on  the  faith  of- 
their  decisions  the  best  way  I  could,  which  I  have  not  been  able  to  do; 
and,  not  content  with  this,  1  was  called  on,  by  letter  from  the  Comptroller, 
on  the  23d  of  December  last,  to  deposite  an  amount  exceeding  $11,000, 
which  I  had  so  deposited  with  the  receiver  general.  Under  such  a  sys- 
tem of  accountability,  as  well  as  responsibility,  it  is,  I  repeat,  a  duty  1 
owe  to  myself,  as  well  as  those  who  are  bound  for  me,  to  adhere  to  all  the 
rights  the  law  awards  to  me.  It  would  thus  appear,  that,  while  the  ac- 
counting officers  do  not  hesitate  to  change  a  rule  which  has  existed  for 
their  government  from  1789  till  it  was  changed  by  them  in  1839  to  my 
prejudice,  they  meet  the  argument  on  which  1  found  my  claims  chiefly  by 
the  suggestion  that  it  is  contrary  to  the  usage  in  the  accounting  offices, 
though  such  usage  would  seem  to  be  of  a  much  more  recent  date.  1  do 
not  contend,  bu^  on  the  contrary  deny,  that  the  usage  of  the  Department 
makes  laws,  or  even  furnishes  controlling  evidence  of  what  the  law  iV> 
against  me,  who  choose  to  question  the  legality  of  the  usage.  1  advert 
to  it  only  for  the  purpose  of  showing  what  a  convenient  virtue  it  has,  as 
dealt  with  by  the  accounting  officers. 

These  are  briefly  my  reasons  for  not  having  complied  with  the  direc- 
tions of  the  Comptroller  in  his  letter  of  the  23d  of  December,  and  to 
my  mind  they  are  just  and  satisfactory.  I  think  they  should  be  so  to  ffeo 
Department.  At  the  same  time,  I  can  appreciate  the  embarrassment  the 
accounting  officers  "must  be  under,  in  admitting  that  in  point  of  law  1  am 
right  in  the  views  1  have  presented  ;  but  this  in  no  wise  ought  to  interfere 
with  the  sound  legal  construction  of  the  various  acts  out  of  which  the 
question  arises. 

1  intended  in  another  place  to  have  given  you  the  following  extract  of 
a  letter  1  addressed  the  Comptroller  on  the  subject,  as  early  as  the  14th 
of  November,  1839,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  you  the  serious  aspect  in 
which  1  viewed  the  matter  from  the  beginning: 

"  1  am  induced  to  go  into  this  discussion  now,,  as  it  is  very  probable 
Congress  may  legislate  at  the  next  session  on  this  subject,  when  it  will 
be  proper  for  it  to  declare  whether  I  have  rightly  interpreted  its  mean- 
ing. That  I  have  given  the  subject  a  strict  legal  interpretation,  i  have 
no  doubt,  unless  1  have  omitted  in  my  searches  to  find  the  act  under 
which  the  Department  seems  to  have  been  heretofore  governed. M 

You  will  here  perceive  I  refer  the  Department  to  Congress.  I  did  the 
same  thing  in  our  controversy  respecting  the  protest  fund,  when  legisla- 
tion was  had,  as  it  might  be  had  in  the  present  instance  for  future  cases, 
though  it  might  not  settle  the  law  for  the  present  one. 

Respectfully^ 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Rep,  No.  669,  555 

Custom- Mouse,  New  York,  January  30,  1841. 

Sir  :  I  deposited  this  morning  with  the  receiver  general,  to  the  credit 
of  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States,  the  sum  of  $25,000,  (say  twenty- 
five  thousand  dollars.) 

Treasury  notes  taken  are  follows,  viz  ; 
January  27  -  $15,721  40 

January  28  9,216  50 

January  29  955  03 

25,893  02 


You  will  perceive  a  great  falling  off  in  amount  of  Treasury  notes  yes- 
terday.  There  was  only  one  hond  due  yesterday,  and  that  for  $1,100, 
and  the  weather  was  had,  which  limited  the  amount  of  husiness. 

Your  letter  of  the  27th  instant,  calling  my  attention  to  the  last  weekly 
return,  is  before  me,  and  you  seem  to  suppose  that  I  can  anticipate  the 
probable  amount  of  receipts  on  Saturday  of  each  week. 

We  know  the  amount  of  bonds  payable  to  be  sure,  but  whether  they 
will  be  paid  in  Treasury  notes  or  money,  we  cannot  tell  ;  nor  can  we  at 
all  tell  the  amount  of  cash  duties  in  advance — for  some  days  in  this  month 
they  have  been  over  §30,000,  and  then  as  low  as  $4,000.  It  so  happen- 
ed, on  Saturday,  they  were  larger,  in  consequence  of  the  efforts  to  get  to 
auction  the  damaged  goods  by  the  Gar  rick  ;  but  we  can  never,  till  the  entry 
is  brought  to  the  cashier's  office,  know  what  time  the  duty  is  to  be  paid. 
The  petty  tricks  that  are  constantly  played  off  upon  us  lenders  the  diffi- 
culty of  forming  an  accurate  estimate  of  the  amount  of  available  funds  in 
any  day  ahead  greater  than  usual.  For  instance,  our  rule  is  to  send  bonds 
that  lie  to  the  district  attorney  at  one  o'clock  of  the  day  after  they  are 
due.  We  have  had  cases  where  a  merchant  would  let  his  bond  lie  over 
and  call  next  morning  to  pay  it  with  a  Treasury  note,  by  which  he  sought 
to  gain  an  additional  day's  interest  on  the  note.  Since  Treasury  notes  have 
been  under  par,  operations  of  this  kind  have  been  performed.  A  person 
having  a  bond  to  pay  calls  in  the  morning  and  pays  in  Treasury  notes. 
At  one  or  two  o'clock  a  debenture  certificate  is  presented,  and  payment, 
called  for,  by  which  operation  he  (legally  to  be  sure,  but  rather  unjustly) 
makes  the  amount  of  the  discount  on  the  Treasury  note  out  of  the  United 
States,  the  effect  of  which  is  to  deprive  us  of  that  amount  of  available 
funds.  Several  large  houses  are  in  the  constant  habit  of  doing  this.  When 
the  bond  is  paid,  the  debenture  is  due  ;  and  rich  houses,  who  have  plenty 
of  funds,  could  not  use  them  better  than  to  take  up  bonds  in  anticipation, 
by  the  process  alluded  to.  I  cannot  refuse  to  take  the  pay  of  bonds  in  ad- 
vance, nor  can  I  refuse  to  take  such  pay  in  Treasury  notes,  or  refuse  the 
payment  of  a  debenture  when  the  bond  is  paid. 

I  would  be  glad  to  know,  then,  how  1  can  tell,  under  these  circum- 
stances, very  accurately — 

1st.  What  the  receipts  are  to  be  ;  or 

2d.  What  the  payments  are  to  be. 

I  wrote  you,  on  the  25th  instant,  that  we  had  no  bonds  due  that  day, 
and  gave  you  some  account  of  the  large  payments  ;  and  I  have  frequent- 
ly told  you  that  the  balance  appearing  on  the  weekly  return  was  not  the 
actual  cash  balance.  For  instance,  we  count  all  the  vouchers  for  sums  re- 
funded for  surplus  deposites  as  cash,  till  I  get  back  from  Washington,  the 
24* 


556 


Rep.  No.  669. 


draft  which  is  monthly  sent  to  me;  and,  in  fine,  for  all  disbursements  (of 
which  there  are  many)  which  cannot  for  some  reason  or  other  be  debited 
in  regular  account  to  the  United  States,  are  counted  as  cash,  so  far  as  the 
weekly  return  is  concerned.  At  this  season  of  the  yeai,  we  cannot  avoid 
making  advances  to  officers  who  have  families  to  support,  intermediate 
the  month  when  they  are  paid  ;  but  this  is  not  charged  to  the  United 
States  till  the  end  of  the  month.  We  have  advanced  to  the  light-house 
at  the  Highlands  the  amounts  in  relation  to  which  we  cannot  charge  till  the 
work  is  finished,  as  we  were  compelled  to  the  job  by  days'  work,  and  to 
purchase  the  materials  ourselves. 

Very  respectfully,  &c. 

J.  110 YT,  Collector. 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury* 


Custom -House,  New  York,  February  2,  1841. 
Sir  ;  Your  letter  of  the  30th  instant^  addressed  to  Walter  Bowne  and 
Jesse  Hoyt,  commissioners  of  the  new  custom-house,  is  before  me.  You 
request  from  us  a  joint  report  on  the  subject  of  a  communication,  under 
date  of  the  16th  January  last,  addressed  to  the  Department  by  Mr.  Frazee-, 
late  superintendent  and  architect  of  the  building  referred  to,  The  sub 
stance  of  the  communication  I  understand,  from  your  letter,  to  be  as  fol- 
lows : 

1st.  Mr.  Frazee  complains  of  being  discharged  from  the  superintend 
dence  while  there  was  work  to  be  done,  and  he  states  that  there  were 
then  35  men  employed  in  the  building, 

2d.  Mr.  Frazee  protests  against  the  course  pursued  by  Mr.  Bowne,  and 
states  he  is  destroying  the  appearance  of  the  building,  and,  as  proof  of  this, 
refers  to  the  wooden  casements  and  fly  doors  at  the  entrance,  &c. 

3d.  Mr.  Frazee  also  object3  to  Mr.  Bowne's  manner  of  arranging  the 
furniture,  &e. 

4th.  He  also  objects  to  the  iron  work  being  painted  white,  and  argues 
in  favor  of  bronzing,  &e. 

Mr.  Bowne  submitted  to  me,  to-day,  a  letter  which  he  had  himself  sign- 
ed, and  requested  me  to  sign  ii  also,  which  I  would  not  do,  for  the  reason 
that  I  differ  with  him  entirely  in  relation  to  the  whole  matter,  and  there- 
fore a  joint  report  cannot  be  made.  The  following  are  my  opinions  in  re- 
lation to  the  subject,  so  far  as  you  have  requested  a  joint  report,  in  the 
order  in  which  Mr.  Frazee  represents  it  to  you,  and  as  I  have  abbreviated 
it  in  the  preceding  abstract. 

1st.  As  to  the  discharge  of  Mr.  Frazee. 

1  was  not  consulted  in  relation  to  his  discharge,  and  could  not  have  con 
sented  to  it,  if  I  had  been  consulted,  for  the  following  reasons  :  i 

1st.  It  would  have  been  in  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the  contract  by 
which  he  was  employed,  as  the  architect  and  superintendent  of  the  build  * 
mg,  to  have  dismissed  him,  except  for  cause, before  the  building  was  com* 
pleted;  and  that  it  was  not  completed  when  he  was  dismissed  is  perfectly 
certain,  unless  mechanics  of  all  sorts  and  laborers  of  all  descriptions  have 
been  since  engaged  in  doing  upon  the  building  that  which  was  useless  and 
unnecessary,  and  which,  if  the  building  had  been  completed,  could  only 


Rep.  No.  669. 


557 


have  been  performed  for  the  purpose  of  undoing  what  has  already  been 
done.  It  is  not  now  completed  upon  any  other  idea  than  the  one  la3t 
stated.  I  was  in  the  building  less  than  15  minutes  since,  and  I  left  four 
stone  cutters,  four  masons,  and  four  laborers  very  hard  at  work  inside  the 
building,  in  the  basement  story;  in  addition  to  which,  blacksmiths  were 
going  in  and  out  in  reference  to  the  work.  I  say  nothing  of  those  at  work 
outside  the  building,  for  this  does  not  affect  the  question  of  completion  so  far 
as  occupancy  is  concerned,  though  it  may  affect  the  question  so  far  as  Mr. 
Frazee's  rights  are  concerned.  I  have  no  reason  to  doubt,  though  I  do  not 
know  the  fact,  that  the  number  of  men  stated  by  Mr.  Frazee  to  have  been 
employed  at  work  on  the  building  is  correct. 

2d.  It  has  already  been  contended  by  Mr.  Bowne,  until  within  a  very 
short  time,  that  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  finishing  the  building,  and  I 
had  therefore  no  one  on  whom  I  could  rely  but  Mr.  Frazee,  for  making 
the  proper  arrangement  in  this  respect.  His  services  I  deemed,  in  a  mat- 
ter of  this  kind,  for  the  short  period  they  might  be  required,  of  an  impor- 
tance greatly  beyond  the  expenses  of  commanding  them. 

3d.  I  therefore  considered  it  unwise  and  inexpedient  to  dismiss  Mr. 
Frazee,  and  I  think  great  delay  will  arise  in  the  occupancy  of  the  build- 
ing from  that  cause.  In  giving  this  opinion,  I  will  not  conceal  another 
opinion  I  entertain  as  honestly  as  that  already  expressed,  that  there  has 
been  a  consumption  of  time  in  the  construction  of  the  buildings  which  to 
me  is  wholly  unaccountable,  and,  I  would  add,  if  my  knowledge  of  such 
subjects  would  justify  it,  wholly  inexcusable;  but  I  cannot  look  upon  these 
circumstances  as  a  sufficient  justification,  at  this  juncture,  for  neglecting 
matters  the  due  observance  of  which  can  alone  secure  the  benefits  con- 
templated from  previous  expenditures.  It  seems  to  be  quite  preposterous 
to  arouse,  at  this  late  day,  from  the  lethargy  of  years.  Hence,  the  effort 
to  satisfy  the  Department  that  the  building  is  completed,  when  in  fact  it  is 
not,  has  not  and  will  not  receive  my  countenance. 

As  to  the  2d  proposition  of  Mr.  Frazee,  viz  :  u  The  destroying  the  ap- 
pearance of  the  building,'5  &c.  In  reference  to  this,  I  have  to  say  that, 
in  my  judgment,  the  wooden  casements  and  doors  painted  green,  as  they 
are  outside  the  iron  door,  is  in  very  bad  keeping  with  the  building,  and 
certainly  disfigures  it.  About  the  beginning  of  January,  if  I  remember 
right,  I  urged  upon  Mr.  Bowne  the  necessity  of  having  "fly  doors''  in- 
side the  iron  doors,  and  pointed  out  the  manner  I  thought  they  should  be 
arranged.  He  subsequently  came  to  the  office,  with  a  carpenter,  to  see 
me  on  the  subject,  when  I  referred  to  my  former  conversation,  and  stated 
that  my  view  remained  the  same.  They  left  me  under  an  impression,  on 
my  part,  that  they  were  to  be  inside,  and  that  the  iron  doors  were  not  to. 
be  concealed.  When  I  first  saw  the  manner  in  which  they  were  being 
put  up,  I  went  to  the  carpenter  and  objected  to  it,  and  also  to  Mr.  Swan, 
the  clerk  of  the  commissioners,  who  promised  to  speak  to  Mr.  Bowne  on 
the  subject.  But  the  work  went  on,  and  I  made  up  my  mind  that  my  sug- 
gestions had  no  influence  with  Mr.  Bowne,  as  evinced  from  the  course  he 
had  taken,  and  therefore  it  was  not  expedient  for  me  to  interfere,  but  leave 
the  responsibility  with  him.  But  as  you  have  called  upon  me  to  report,  I 
must  say  that,  in  addition  to  their  appearance,  they  do  not  answer  the  pur- 
poses designed.    The  object  was  two  fold  : 

1st  To  avoid  the  necessity  of  opening  so  massive  a  door  as  the  iron  ; 
and 


55 


8  Rep,  No.  Stifl. 


2d.  To  prevent  a  current  of  air  passing  in  and  through  the  building 
when  the  door  was  open. 

To  avoid  the  latter,  the  door  should  have  been  inside  and  not  outside 
the  building,  and  of  the  iron  door.  On  opening  the  fly  door,  and  permit- 
ting it  to  fall  back  by  its  own  weight,  a  reverberation  is  made,  by  a  report 
at  ting  upon  the  ear  with  about  the  same  sensation  as  would  the  discharge  of 
a  cannon  of  24  pound  calibre,  at  (lie  distance  of  a  quarter  of  a  mile.  Such 
is  the  descriplion  and  simile  made  to  me  by  two  gentlemen  whom  1  re- 
quested to  make  the  experiment.  With  six  or  seven  hundred  persons  go- 
ing in  and  out  of  the  building  a  day,  at  two  entrances,  similarly  situated, 
would  render  it  impossible,  in  consequence  of  the  noise,  to  transact  busi- 
ness.  This  must  be  remedied,  and  fly  doors  must  be  put  up  inside  also,  to 
prevent  a  circulation  of  air. 

3d.  The  arrangement  of  the  furniture,  &c.  I  am  not  certain  that  I  un- 
derstand this  part  of  the  communication  of  Mr.  Frazee,  but  what  1  know 
of  this  branch  of  the  subject  is  simply  this :  Some  time  after  I  had  forward- 
ed the  estimate  1  procured  according  to  your  directions  through  Mr.  Fra- 
zee, Mr.  Bowne  called  upon  me  to  say  that  he  thought  Mr.  Frazee's  plan, 
which  1  had  sanctioned,  was  not  the  best  one  for  the  arrangement  of  the 
rotundo,  commonly  called  the  "  collector's1  room."  He  requested  me  to 
meet  him  at  the  building  at  an  hour  agreed  upon,  which  I  did  on  the  12th 
of  January,  for  the  purpose  of  reconsidering  the  subject.  I  did  meet  him, 
when  he  exhibited  a  drawing  he  had  procured  of  his  own  views.  Upon 
examining  it,  I  agreed  with  him  as  to  the  shape  of  the  counter  that  should 
be  put  up  in  that  room.  1  thought  the  plan  he  proposed  would  give  us 
more  room  than  the  plan  of  Mr.  Frazee.  1  wrote  him  a  letter,  on  that  day, 
to  that  effect — a  copy  of  which  1  send  you.  That  counter  is  now  in  the 
progress  of  completion,  and  1  have  but  one  remark  to  make  in  relation  to 
it,  which  is,  that  I  do  not  think  that  there  could  be  found  a  respectable 
farmer  in  New  Hampshire,  or  any  other  State  in  the  Union  where  fine 
timber  is  reasonably  plenty,  that  would  not  hesitate  in  putting  such  in- 
terior boards  in  a  barn  yard  fence  as  is  worked  into  the  counter  alluded 
to  ;  and  this  opinion  I  expressed  to  Mr.  Bowne  to-day,  and  his  only  reply 
was,  that  I  must  wait  for  the  paint  to  be  put  on.  In  addition  to  the  coun- 
ter which  Mr.  Bowne  has  ordered  to  be  put  up,  he  has,  J- learn,  ordered 
four  desks  to  be  made  of  similar  materials;  to  all  which  I  make  no  sort  of 
objections,  but  only  state  the  facts  as  I  understand  them.  The  propriety  of 
the  arrangement  belongs  to  the  decision  of  others.  I  know  of  no  other 
proceeding,  in  relation  to  furniture,  with  which  Mr.  Bowne  has  any  con- 
nexion ;  and  how  far  it  is  entitled  to  be  dignified  with  the  appellation  of 
an  arrangement  in  relation  to  furniture  for  the  new  custom-house,  1  will 
not  undertake  to  say. 

4th.  In  relation  to  painting  the  iron  work,  I  have  to  remark — 
1st.  I  do  not  profess  to  know,  of  my  own  knowledge  or  experience, 
any  thing  in  relation  to  this  subject;  but  I  have  frequently  been  spoken  to 
by  others,  in  tones  of  astonishment,  that  we  painted  the  iron  work  white. 
My  answer  has  invariably  been,  that  we  wanted  all  light  we  could  get, 
and  that  white  paint  would  give  us  greater  benefits,  in  this  respect,  than 
any  other  color.  In  passing  through  the  building  to-day  with  a  gentle- 
man whose  attention  had  not  been  called  to  the  subject,  he  remarked  to 
what  an  extent  the  paint  had  become  soiled,  and  that  bronze  was  a  better 
color  for  the  reason  that,  in  a  building  of  that  kind,  there  was  at  all  times 


Rep.  No.  669. 


559 


more  or  less  moisture,  and  the  dust  that  settled  upon  the  white  paint  would 
adhere  and  discolor  it,  when  such  would  not  be  the  case  with  bionze. 
This  seems  to  be  reasonable.  The  white  paint  is  now  very  much  soiled, 
and  I  think  we  have  no  additional  light  for  it.  I  am  therefore  inclined 
to  believe  that  bronze  would  be  better. 

1  have  gone  through,  1  believe,  all  the  points  of  inquiry  in  your  letter, 
and  with  more  details,  probably,  than  will  be  interesting;  to  you,  and  cer- 
tainly much  more  at  length  than  was  agreeable  to  me;  but  there  is  mystery 
in  this  affair  which  1  have  not  been  able  to  and  cannot  now  solve. 

Prior  to  the  27th  of  October,  Mr.  Bowne  reported,  as  you  informed  me, 
t hat  the  building  was  finished,  ready  for  the  reception  of  the  officers  of  the 
customs.    1  have  seen  to-day  a  certificate  in  these  words,  viz : 

"No  workmen  have  been  employed  or  required  in  the  new  custom- 
house since  Christmas  last. 

" WILLIAM  SWAN, 
<c  Clerk,  Commissioner's  office." 

"February  1,  1841." 

I  infer  from  this,  that  some  work  was  done  between  the  27th  day  of 
October  and  Christmas  day,  and.  if  so,  1  should  also  infer  the  building 
was  not  completed  on  the  former  day ;  and  your  own  knowledge  of  what 
has  been  done  since  the  latter  day  is  enough  to  satisfy  you,  as  1  believe, 
in  the  indulgence  of  some  suspicion  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  certificate. 
The  object  of  procuring  it  I  cannot  imagine.  When  Mr.  Bowne  exhibit- 
ed it  to  me  to-day,  I  asked  its  object,  but  was  not  informed.  It  is  neces- 
sary for  me  to  make  this  special  reference  to  it,  for  I  know  not  what  kin- 
dred papers  may  have  heretofore,  or  may  hereafter  find  their  way  to  the 
Department.  That  work  has  been  done  since  "Christmas,"  is  very  cer- 
tain; for  on  the  ,30th  of  December  I  transmitted  you  a  letter  of  Mr.  Fra- 
zee's,  dated  the  28th  of  that  month,  in  which  he  ennumerated  several 
things  that  required  to  be  done.  Some  of  them  have  since  been  done.  I 
know  that  another  coat  of  paint  has  been  put  on  the  iron  sashes,  and  on 
some  of  the  shutters,  but  not  on  as  many  as  should  have  been. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

February  3. 

P.  S.  Mr.  Bowne  called  at  the  office  this  mor  ning  to  inform  me  that  the 
men  I  saw  at  work  inside  the  building  yesterday  were  not  in  the  employ 
or  pay  of  the  United  States,  and  he  requested  me  to  go  over  and  make  the 
inquiry.  1  did  so,  and  I  found  two  of  the  contractors,  viz  :  Mr.  Cole  and 
Mr.  Porter,  both  of  whom  informed  me  that  they  were  at  work,  with  their 
men,  on  the  contracts  made  with  the  commissioners,  and  for  which  they 
were  to  be  paid  by  Mr.  Bowne.  Mr.  Swan  was  present,  and  remarked 
that  Mr.  Cole  would  be  done  in  a  day  or  two  ;  but  he  did  not  seem  to  know 
when  Mr.  Porter  would  finish.  I  confess  I  cannot  conceal  my  mortifica- 
tion at  the  difficulty  you  must  experience  in  being  able  to  ascertain  a  very 
simple  matter  of  fact— whether  the  new  custom-house  at  this  port  is  or  is 
not  finished,  or  whether  any  work  has  been  done  or  was  required  to  be 
done  within  the  last  40  days. 

,1.  HOYT,  Collector. 


500 


Rep.  No,  669. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  February  10,  1841. 

Sir  :  The  amount  of  Treasury  notes  taken  to-day  is  $7,435  93. 

I  have  made  a  report  to  the  Comptroller  to-day,  on  some  eccentric  fig- 
ures from  the  naval  office,  which  I  hope  he  will  lose  no  time  in  communi- 
cating to  you.  I  call  them  eccentric  because  no  one  seems  to  understand 
them. 

Very  respectfully, 

J.  HOYT,  Collector. 

Hon,  Levi  Woodbury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 


Treasury  Department,  February  12,  1841. 
Sir  :  I  annex  an  article  cut  from  the  New  York  Herald,  of  the  10th  in- 
stant, (a  newspaper  published  in  your  city,)  in  regard  to  a  reported  depre- 
dation committed  on  the  goods  deposited  in  one  of  the  public  stores,  and 
have  to  request  that  you  will  inform  me  whether  there  is  a  foundation  for 
the  statements  contained  in  said  article;  and,  if  so,  be  pleased  to  furnish 
me  with  the  facts  of  the  case. 

Respectfully, 

LEVI  WOODBURY, 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 

Jesse  Hoyt,  Esq  ,  Collector^  fyc. 


Custom- House,  New  York,  February  16,  1841. 

Sir  :  Your  letter  of  the  i  1th  instant,  in  relation  to  goods  rescued  from 
the  conflagration  of  the  public  store.  No.  261 ,  Front  street,  in  consequence 
of  my  indisposition,  was  not  opened  till  this  morning.    I  called  upon  the 
auditor  for  information  in  relation  to  the  accounts;  and  he  stated,  to  my 
utter  surprise,  that  he  had  not  seen  the  papers,  and  had  not  furnished  the 
account.    I  had  a  strong  recollection  of  sending  them  to  him  at  the  time 
of  the  occurrence,  with  directions  to  make  up  the  accounts.    The  office 
was  thoroughly  searched  for  the  original  papers,  but  without  success;  and 
it  was  suggested,  as  the  fire  commissioners'  rooms  adjoined  the  auditor's 
room,  that  they  might  have  got  in  there  by  mistake.    An  examination  was 
made,  and  they  were  found  with  the  following  endorsement  upon  them  : 
"Sales        .....  .  $19,929  17 

"Duties      .......      8,170  90 

"  Mr.  Fleming  will  please  attend  to  this. 

J.  H. 

"February  29,  1840." 

This  mistake  in  the  destination  of  the  papers  accounts  for  the  transac- 
tion not  appearing  in  the  accounts  of  the  1st  quarter  of  1840.  I  am  very 
confident  the  proceeds  were  transferred  to  the  Treasurer,  but  the  exact 
day  we  shall  not  be  able  to  ascertain  in  time  for  this  day's  mail,  as  the 
whole  morning  has  been  taking  up  in  finding  the  papers.  We  shall  con- 
tinue the  examination ;  and  if  it  does  not  appear,  as  I  believe  it  will,  that 


Rep,  No,  669. 


561 


it  has  not  been  transferred,  it  will  be  so  done  to-morrow.  I  cannot  con- 
ceal  my  mortification  at  the  occurrence  of  the  loss  of  the  papers,  which 
left  a  hiatus  in  my  accounts ;  and  it  is  not  a  little  extraordinary  that,  with 
all  my  correspondence  about  the  affair,  I  should  not  have  known  it  be- 
fore. 

In  my  letter  of  12th  January  last,  I  assumed  that  the  accounts  were  in 
the  department.  The  memorial  stated  the  amount,  as  my  memory  served 
me  accurately.  I  took  your  letter  from  the  post  office  on  my  way,  after 
closing  of  business,  to  my  house,  and  wrote  the  reply  from  there  ;  and  it 
did  not  even  occur  to  me  to  look  for  the  precise  amount,  as  that  did  notin- 
volve  the  principle  in  question.  I  supposed  the  account  was  to  form  a  part 
of,  or  was  to  be  connected  with,  the  amount  of  goods  sold  at  nine  months' 
sale,  and  that  it  was  transmitted,  with  that  account,  in  the  usual  course. 
I  had  occasion  to  say  to  the  Comptroller  a  few  days  since  that  it  was 
utterly  impossible  for  the  collector  to  have  any  accurate  knowledge  of  the 
mass  ol  accounts  that  are  forwTarded,  and  he  must  assume  them  to  be  cor- 
rect or  not  on  the  faith  he  has  in  the  auditor.  Such  is  my  condition,  and 
must  be  that  of  any  other  man  who  acts  as  collector  of  this  port;  and 
hence,  when  the  papers  are  put  in  the  hands  of  the  auditor,  I  am  compel- 
led, by  the  nature  of  my  position,  to  consider  my  part  of  the  labor  and 
nominal  responsibility  at  an  end.  When  I  sent  the  papers  in  question 
from  my  office  to  the  auditor's  room  by  the  ordinary  messenger,  and  sup- 
posed they  had  reached  the  proper  destination,  I  dismissed  the  subject 
from  my  mind.  The  reasons  for  the  error  of  the  messenger  could  be  ex- 
plained if  I  had  the  leisure  to  do  so  before  closing  the  mail,  and  it  is  a  very 
extraordinary  coincidence. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOY  T,  Collector, 

Hon.  Levi  Wcodeury, 

Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  22,  1841. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  copy  of  a  letter  I  this  day  addressed 
to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury ;  and,  in  conformity  to  the  suggestion  made 
therein,  do  hereby  resign  the  office  of  collector  of  the  customs  of  the  por* 
and  district  of  New  York. 

To  prevent,  bo  far  as  I  can,  any  inconvenience  or  injury  to  the  public 
service,  I  shall  continue  to  exercise  the  duties  of  the  office  until  duly  no- 
tified of  the  appointment  of  a  successor, 

J,  HOYT,  Collector, 

To  the  President  of  the  United  States, 


Custom-House,  New  York,  February  24,  184 iL 

Sir.  I  received  this  morning  your  letter  of  the  23d  instant,  calling  my 
attention  to  a  casual  conversation  with  you  concerning  the  knowledge  of 
judgment  of  Mr.  Cornelius  Savage,  in  relation  to  the  value  of  dry  goods, 


562 


Hep,  No.  669. 


and  more  especially  of  woollen  goods.  I  stated,  in  con versation^  that  I 
had  been  in  the  habit  of  consulting  with  and  employing  Mr.  Savage  for  the 
last  two  years,  to  examine  woollens  at  the  appraisers'  stores. 

I  also  stated  that  I  had  employed  many  other  merchants  for  the  same 
purpose,  and  that  importers  had  also  frequently  called  upon  merchants 
to  perform  similar  services  in  their  behalf,  at  the  same  stores;  and  that, 
in  my  opinion,  Mr.  Savage  was  among  the  most  competent  to  perform  that 
duty  of  any  one  I  knew — that  I  had  great  contidence  in  the  result  of  his 
experience  and  good  judgment  in  matters  of  this  kind.  But,  as  a  general 
proposition,  I  have  thought  and  still  think  Mr.  Savage  a  very  competent 
man  in  the  respects  alluded  to,  or  I  should  not  have  called  upon  him  so 
frequently  as  I  have  heretofore  done.  I  stated  to  you  that  I  was  willing 
to  say  this  of  Mr.  Savage  without  stopping  to  inquire  what  use  it  was  pro- 
posed to  make  of  my  opinion. 

Respectfully, 

J.  HOYT. 

Mr.  William  Elliott  Lee,  Neiv  Fork. 


INDEX. 


A. 

Page. 


Appraisers,  overruled  by  Hoyt    ------  40 

faithful  and  intelligent  44 

to  be  appointed  by  domestic  manufacturers             -  .    -  53 

Hoyt'ft  instructions  to                           -              -  -  57 

superseded  in  their  duties  by  Cairns        ••  65 

letter  of,  to  commissioners,  as  to  frauds  in  woollens  89 

assistant,  testimony  of,  as  to  frauds         -              -  -              -  90 

recommendations  as  to           -              -              -  -              -  185 

Appraisement  of  the  cargo  of  the  Silas  Richards         -              -  ..             _  46 

of  the  Independence  58 

Auditor,  should  be  appointed  by  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  40 

his  conduct  in  auditing  accounts  -----  22 

his  orders  for  stationery  22 

his  veracity  and  integrity  questioned  23 

subject  to  the  control  of  the  collector           -              -  -              -  120 

should  be  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury   -  -              -  185 

suggestions  relative  to  -              -              -              -  -              -  186 

B. 

Bleeker,  J.  R.,  offers  to,  by  George  R.  Ives,  of  money,  to  watch  importers  -  54 

removed  from  office  for  testifying;       -  156 

his  restoration  called  for     -              -              -  -              -  264 

delay  in  restoring  him  explained        -  266 

Butler,  Benjamin  F.s  letters  of  Hoyt  to,  quoted         -  66 

fees  received  by,  in  compromise  cases  97 

contradicts  the  statements  of  Hoyt  -  «  -  100 
admits  there  was  "  no  probable  cause"  in  the  case  of  La  Chaise 

&  Fouche         -              -              -  -              -  110 

his  bill  of  costs  illegal  and  enormous         -  -              -  111 

lakes  oath  of  office    -=.--.  177 

Hoyt's  fears  relative  to>  on  the  subject  of  fees  -  177 

terrified  at  the  iniquity  of  the  age"        -  177 

amount  of  fees  received  by       -  -  178 

his  lees  in  the  compromise  cases              -  178 

fakes  fees  contrary  to  law         -              «  -  179 

Bottomiy,  case  of  compromise  with           -----  98 

Hoyt  violates  his  stipulation  with              -              -  -              -  114 

seizure  of  goods  of,  by  Hoyt      -              -              -  **              -           1 15 

Bank  of  the  State  of  New  York,  Hoyt's  account  with               -  -             -  120 

Bradley,  \V.  A.,  his  letter  to  Walter  Forward          -              -  -  194 

his  letter  to  John  Tyler    -              -              -  -  194 

British  Government  defrauded  of  five  pounds  fifteen  shillings                 :  -  ' '  -  328 

a 

Cartage,  expense  of-              -              -              -              -  =              -  6 

frauds  in-             -              -              -              -  -             -  5 

price  of-             -             -             -             -  -             -  6 

amount  of,  in  three  years           -----  6 

fraud  in-             -             -              ~              -  -             -  6 

no  charge  made  in  payment  of,  by  Curtis  71 

amount  received  by  Wasson  for  -              -              =  -              =  142 

Carts  privileged                                                   =              =  -  5 

Cairns,  W.,  instrument  of  Collector  Hoyt  =  8 


ii 


INDEX. 


Cairns,  W.,  placed  in  (he  woollens  loft  - 

objects  to  going  there  without  additional  pay 

arrangements  with,  by  Hoyt  - 

hopes  Van  Buren  will  be  elected  - 

gets  control  of  the  woollens  loft  - 

raises  the  standard  of  value  - 

witnesses  in  relation  to  - 

Hoyt  refuses  to  let  his  appraisements  be  disturbed 

his  mode  of  appraisement  - 

standing  witness,  of  Hoyt  - 

calendar  of  court  arranged  to  meet  his  convenience 

his  conduct  towards  Labron  &  Ives 

his  conduct  generally  - 

contradicts  his  own  oath  - 

objects  of,  in  his  appointment  to  woollens  loft 

dismissed  by  Edward  Curtis  - 

swears  falsely  - 

despatched  to  seize  goods  in  Philadelphia 
nature  of  his  oath  - 
Curtis,  E.,  no  abuses  corrected  by 

removes  Cairns  from  offiee  - 

removes  Wasson     -  -  -  -  - 

privy  to  Wasson' s  fraud  in  cartage  - 

keeps  Wasson  and  Cairns  in  office  as  instruments  - 

his  administration  of  custom-house  - 

motives  for  appointment  - 

retains  Cairns  and  Wasson  - 

his  appointment  urged  by  American  manufactures  - 

testimony  of  A.  H.  Smith  relative  to 

his  appointment  urged  by  Eastern  manufacturers 

testimony  of  Thatcher  Tucker,  relative  to  his  appointment 

conditions  of  his  appointment  - 

machinery  of,  to  break  down  commerce  - 

appointed  by  the  influence  of  domestic  manufactures 

letter  to,  relative  to  official  documents  published  in  the  Standard 

his  answer  - 

denied  having  books  of  official  correspondence  of  Hoyt 
expenditure  of 

pays  Wasson  large  amount  of  cartage  - 
his  stationery  bills  - 
extravagance  of  - 

adds  a  statement  in  copy  of  letter  not  in  the  original 
stationery,  account  of,  continued  - 
appoints  commissioners  to  examine  his  cash  account 
instigates  a  call  for  this  account  - 
overpays  measurers'  fees  - 
illegality  of  payment  - 
bargains  with  Riall  for  office  - 
arrangements  with  Riall  to  hold  office  - 
questions  to,  as  to  sale  of  offices,  and  answers 
denies  any  improper  motives  - 
increases  expense  at  New  York  custom  house 
exceeds  all  previous  collectors  in  expenses 
employs  more  officers  - 
removes  officers  who  testify  - 

sells  an  office  to  John  Whitaker  ... 
his  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  explaining  increase  of 
charged  with  corruption 

attempts  to  get  Dwight  removed  from  commissioner's  room 
prevents  the  officers  from  testifying  - 
guilty  of  false  swearing  .  .  _  _ 

contradicts  his  own  oath  - 
Cashier  how  to  be  appointed  - 

subject  to  control  of  collector  - 
(Phillips)  receives  money  - 


expenses 


Page. 
54 
61 
62 
63 
63 
64 
65 
65 
66 
66 
66 
67 
68 
69 
81 
70 
80 
78 
80 
17 
70 
70 
71 
St 
133 
133 
133 
134 
134 
134 
134 
135 
13C 
137 
138 
138 
138 
142 
142 
.147 
147 
148 
149 
150 
152 
153 
153 
156 
158 
159 
159 
169 
172 
173 
176 
255 
259 
265 
267 
268 
273 
274 
40 
120 
131 


INDEX. 


iii 


Page. 

Cashier,  (Bleecker)  removed  from  office  by  Curtis,  after  testifying  -              -  156 

(Waters)  refuses  to  answer  questions  of  commissioners  -              -  176 

should  be  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  -  -  185 

Cox,  W.  8.,  his  statement  of  interference  by  domestic  manufacturers  -              -  45 

Combination  of  manufacturers  to  destroy  the  importation  of  goods  -  51 

mode  of  proceeding      -              -  52 

Campbell,  James,  his  confessions             -  51 

agreement  of,  with  Hoyt  to  testify  -              -  '  -  106 

nature  of  testimony  to  be  given  by  -              -  -              -  106 

letter  of  Hoyt  relative  to               -  333 

character  of,  by  Hoyt,  as  a  witness                ...  333 

not  to  be  prosecuted  if  he  testifies  to  the  truth  -              -  334 

refuses  to  testify  when  put  on  the  stand         -  334 

Commissions  charged  by  Hoyt   ------  130 

Compromises,  history  of                         -              -              -  -              -  96 

names  of  persons  who  agreed  to  98 

amounts  paid  on  -              -              -              -  -             -  98 

further  of                         -              -              -  -                     98, 99 

settlement  of                    -              -              -  -              -  100 

history  of,  as  to  La  Chaise  &  Fouche  -  105 
Correspondence  between  commissioners  and  E.  Curtis,  relative  to  publication  in  the 

4 '  New  York  Standard"           -  138 

statements  relative  to  Hoyt's  books  of              -  *    -    139,  140 

retention  of  Hoyt's  books  of,  delays  report  of  commissioners  -  143 

Congress,  pa-  s  a  law  as  to  the  mode  of  selecting  juries              -  -  95 

D. 

Decas^-e  and  Miege,  history  of  the  case  of  -              -              -  -              -  113 

Hoyt's  motives  for  prosecution  of               -  -              -  113 

letters  concerning.     (See  Letters)             -   *  -              -   301,  320 

Defalcation  of  Jesse  Hoyt          -             -             -              -  -  -119 

Deposites  of  collector  Hoyt  in  bank,  made  in  his  own  name       -  120 

"Debenture  laws,  sources  of  fraud               -  182 

Dwight,  G.  A.j  attempts  of  Curtis  to  procure  his  removal         -  267 

his  compensation              -  268 

employed  by  Commissioner  Kelly,  by  direction  of  Mr.  Ewing           -  '  268 

payment  to                      -              -  '    -              -  268 

Poindexter's  letter  to  John  Tyler  relative  to  -              -  269 

efforts  of  Curtis  to  procure  his  removal  -  -              -  269 

his  account  allowed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  -  271 

E. 

Exports,  amount  of,  in  1839  and  1840      -  119 

Edgar,  A.,  (storekeeper,)  his  reforms        -              -              -  -  144 

Expenditures  in  the  New  York  custom-house            -  170 

comparative  table  of             -              -              -  -  171 

increased  under  E.  Curtis     -----  172 

amount  of  gradual  increase  since  1825  -  174 

causes  assigned  for  increase  of  1 74 

these  alleged  causes  fallacious              -              -  -  174 

F. 

Felt,  David,  testimony  of                       -             -             -  -             -       15,  16 

Fleming,  (Auditor,)  his  conduct  iu  auditing  accounts  22 

orders  of,  for  stationery  22 

is  contradicted  by  other  witnesses             -  -              -  23 

his  veracity  and  integrity  questioned         -  -              -  23 

Fire  in  Front  street    -------  32 

statement  of  goods  saved  from,  and  sold  32 

history  of           -             -             -             -              -  -  -32 

frauds  committed  by  officers  at           -             -              -  -              -  33 

public  sale  of  goods  saved  from          -----  33 


iv- 


INDEX 


Page. 

Frauds,  how  to  preterit            -  39 

in  the  sale  of  goods  at  the  fire  in  Front  street  31 

none  committted  by  importers       -                                          -  -  41 

on  the  frontiers             -  42 

mode  of  detecting                                      -              -  43 

by  false  invoices,  not  proved         -                                          -  -  43 

in  debentures               -  182 

mode  of  committing      -             -             -             -             -  -  183 

Furniture  of  New  York  custom-house,  account  of                                 -  1S1>  165 

letters  relating  to        -  -    253,  254 

letters  of  Woodbury  to  Hoyt  relative  to      -  -  373 

Fees  taken  by  B.  F.  Butler,  illegal  and  unusual                                                "  -  179 

extra,  received  by  custom-house  officers             -  -  182 

Forward,  W.,  letter  of  George  Poindexter  to,  for  the  restoration  of  Bleecker  -  265 

letter  from,  to  G.  Poinde*tcr  relative  to  Bleecker  -  266 

letter  of  to  G.  Poindexter    -              -              -              -  -  271 

directs,  by  order  of  the  President,  that  the  officers  of  the  present  col- 
lector shali  not  be  examined                       -  -  271 
his  letter  to  G.  Poindexter,  as  to  the  mode  of  examination  -  275 
reply  of  G.  Poindexter  to    -              -              -              -  -  277 

letters  of  G.  Poindexter  to  -             -             -             -  -   276,  279 

his  letter  to  G.  Poindexter,  authorizing  him  to  remain  in  New  York  -  286 

%to  G.  Poindexter,  returning  the  books  of  correspondence  of  Hoyt  -  289 

his  letter  to  G.  Poindexter,  requesting  him  to  return  to  Washington  -  289 


G. 

Goods  unclaimed  in  public  store 

Fraud  in  the  charges  in  the  mode  of  sale  of 
mode  of  advertising  - 
mode  of  sale  of 

bought  by  custom-house  officers 

purchased  by  G.  A.  Wasson 

seized  by  Hoyt,  acquitted 
Gilpin,  the  Solicitor,  endeavors  to  prevent  Hoyt'a  rapacity 
Great  Britain  appealed  to  for  redress 

IL 

Hoyt,  Jesse,  official  corruption  of 
frauds  of,  in  storage 

collects  money  after  his  resignation  of  office 
refuses  to  interfere  in  the  fraudulent  sale  in  Front  street 
refuses  to  suffer  goods  to  be  entered  by  appraisement 
injury  inflicted  on  commerce  by 
his  charges  on  goods  unclaimed 
his  bargain  with  the  manufacturers 
his  mode  of  raising  the  standard  of  value 
sets  aside  the  appraisement  of  Lounsbury 
denounces  the  merchants  - 
his  letter  to  Lawrence  &  Stone  - 
arranges  to  make  large  seizures  in  fall  of  1839 
violates  the  law  - 

suffers  goods  of  Labron  &  Ives  to  be  entered 

receives  checks  as  cash  -- 

begins  seizures  on  a  large  scale 

superintends  the  woollens  loft  person  all y 

defeated  in  suits  - 

becomes  disheartened  - 

informs  Lawrence  &  Stone  of  his  failure  -  , 

his  correspondence  with  Lawrence  &  8ton«  as  to  procuring  witnesses 

complains  of  courts  and  juries  - 

seizes  goods  after  they  had  passed  the  custom-house 

hie  letter  to  L.  Woodbury  quoted  - 


37 
38 
38 
38 
38 
60 
101 
104 


29 
30 
35 
36 
37 
37 
55 
56 
60 
50 
61 
63 
63 
67 
68 
73 
74 
74 
74 
74 
75 
75 
76 
76 


INDEX. 


v 


Page. 

Hoyf,  Jesse,  his  expedients  to  embarrass  importers     -  95 

commences  prosecutions        -  96 

denounces  Yorkshire  men,  and  recommends  them  to  flee       -  96 

has  no  confidence  in  Waddels,  juries,  or  Judge  Betts  09 

contradicts  B.  F.  Butler        -  100 

compromises  with  the  Yorkshire  men     -              -              -              -  101 

is  called  to  account  by  W.  W.  Stono    -  101 

apologizes  to  Stone,  that  the  parties  paid  the  fiddler  101 

admits  his  frauds  on  the  importers         -              -  102 

gives  his  reasons  for  the  suits               -              -  102 

informs  the  Solicitor  that  he  has  no  invoices  of  importers       -  103 

honor  of  the  country  implicated  by        -  104 

violates  his  stipulations  with  importers   -  104 

admits  he  had  no  proof  to  condemn  Bottomly's  good;?  1 15 

defalcation  of  -  -  -  -  119. 
refuses  commissioners  permission  to  examine  his  bank  account,  unless 

they  would  approve  all  his  official  acts  except  his  accounts  -              -  120 

allowed  by  commissioners  to  introduce  testimony    -              -              -  121 
deals  in  stocks       -              -              -              -              -  -121 

his  transactions  in  stocks,  history  of                    -              -              -  121 

broker's  testimony  relative  to  -----  123,  124 

his  income                        f-              -              -              -              -  126 

required  to  give  new  bond     -              -              -              -              -  127 

refuses,  and  gives  reasons      -----  128,  129 

objects  to  depositing  in  bank  -              -  •           -             -              -  129 

prefers  to  pay  the  Treasurer  of  United  States         -              -              -  129 

charges  commission  for  such  payments  -              -              -             -  129 

his  insolence  to  Secretary  of  Treasury    -              -              -  130 

demands  letter  books  of  commissioners   -.;  141 

demands  letter  books  of  Secretary  of  Treasury       -              -              -  141 

his  fears  relative  to  B.  F.  Butler          -              -             -              -  177 

promises  to  lecture  B.  F.  Butler  -  17? 
discovers  that  the  British  Government  have  been  defrauded  out  of  five 

pounds  fifteen  shillings,  and  asks  Secretary  of  Treasury  whether  the 

comity  of  nations  requires  our  Government  to  communicate  this  fraud  328 

assigns  his  reason  for  not  depositing  "  protest  money"  in  bank  -  337 
says  "it  is  contrary  to  the  theory  of  the  Government  to  consider  money 

unsafe  in  my  hands"         -             -             -             -              -  337 
says  he  has  no  doubt  that  Mr,  Woodbury  ♦•'will  write  such  a  letter  as  I 

suggest"           ......  333 

his  theory  of  Government       -             -              -              -              =  344 

Hams,  John,  his  testimony  as  to  fire  in  Front  street  -              -              =              =  36 

his  testimony  as  to  fire  in  Front  street  -  97 
his  estimate  of  the  injury  to  commerce  by  Hoyt   -  =117 

i.         .  ' 

Imports,  amount  of-  -  -  -  -  -  -25 

falling  off,  in  consequence  of  Hoyt's  conduct              -              -              -  118 
diminution  of,  principally  in  goods  paying  ad  valorem  duty  and  subject  to 

seizure  -  -  -  -  -  =118 

amount  of,  at  the  port  of  New  York           -              -              -  170 

amounts  of,  under  Adams,  Jackson,  and  Tyler                         =              -  171 
remarks  on                -              -             -              -  '191 

Importers  oiFer  to  pledge  their  goods  for  bail — refused  by  Hoyt   -  =96 

some,  go  to  Montreal  -              -              -  _                          -  97 

Inspectors,  night,  number  of,  to  be  reduced               -                                          -  185 

of  revenue,  duties  of  -              -             -              -                            -  184 

increase  of  pay  of,  recommended                                          -             -  184 

Iron  work  of  custom-house,  prices  of         -              -              -                         '-  -  160 

account  of                                                                                      -  161 

statement  of  expense  of         -   -             -             -              -             -  167,  168 

prices  of                  -  257 

examination  of  Winant  and  Robinson  relative  to                     -             -  257 


vi 


INDEX. 


Ives,  G.  R.,  offers  of  money  to}  to  watch  the  woollens  interest,  made  bv  Samuel  Law- 
rence -  -  -  ,  _  _  _  53 
mentions  the  subject  to  custom-house  officers  54 
offers  Lounsbury  money  "to  work"  for  the  manufacturers  -  -  '  54 
is  the  standing  witness  of  Jesse  Hoy  t  -  -  "  -  66 
charged  with  false  swearing  73 
is  favored  at  the  custom-house  67 
his  character  as  as  a  witness  -  -  -  -  -72 
his  testimony  contradicted      -----  73 

J. 

Tones,  A.  T.,  supplies  his  father  with  stationery       -  1.8 

Jones,  clerk  in  surveyor's  office,  supplies  stationery    -              -              -  -  {g 

•Juric.-,  merchants  to  be  excluded  fiom                     -              -              -  -  92 
ordered  to  be  drawn  from  such  classes  as  to  render  verdicts  to  the  United  States 

certain       -             -             -             -             _  -92 

farmers  and  mechanics  to  be  preferred  for                     -              -  -  93 

special  law  of  Congress  as  to                       -              -              _  _  95 

K. 

Kent,  chancellor,  his  opinion  as  to  the  legality  of  seizures  87 

Kelly,  his  conduct  in  the  appointment  of  his  relative  -              -              -  -  156 

Lane,  Josiah,  his  testimony — testimony  of,  quoted     -              -              -  42 

Lawrence,  8.,  his  interview  with  Hoyt       -              -              -  40 

thinks  the  standard  of  value  too  low     -  47 

knows  of  no  frauds  47 

complains  and  causes  Bottomly's  goods  to  be  seized            -  47 

believes  frauds  have  been  practised  48 

his  effort  at  the  New  York  custom-house            -              -  48 

offers  to  advance  money,  in  Baltimore,  to  counsel               -  -  52 

his  attempts  to  find  an  appraiser          -  53 

offers  G.  R.  Ives  money  to  act  as  spy  on  importers              -  -  53 

facts  stated  in  relation  to                    -              -              -  -  55 

wishes  "  the  standard  of  value"  to  be  raised  to  protect  American  manu- 
facturers         -                            -             -              -  -  5/ 

his  disappointment  on  account  of  Hoyt's  compromises          -  -  101 

Lawrence,  Abbot,  his  correspondence  with  G.  A.  Wasson        -  137 

his  control  at  the  New  York  custom-house    -  137 

letter  to,  from  G.  A.  Wasson,  aking  his  kind  offices      -  -  251 

referred  to  by  W.  Cairns,  for  character         -              -  -  250 

La  Chaise,  A.,  his  testimony  quoted         -              -              -              -  =108 

La  Chaise  &  Fouche,  account  of  the  seizure  of  the  goods  of                     -  -  105 

Laws  for  appraisements             -              -                          .  -              -  85 

Laws,  special,  as  to  juries  in  Pennsylvania               -                            -  95 

Legality  of  seizures  in  Baltimore  and  Philadelphia  84 

Lounsbury,  J.,  offers  to,  by  G.  R.  Ives,  to  induce  him  to  seize  goods         -  -  54 

authorized  by  Samuel  Lawrence        -              -              -  -  54 

his  testimony  as  to  the  effect  on  commerce  occasioned  by  the  seizures 

of  Hoyt         -              -              -              -              -  11 V 

Letters—Wasson  to  Hoyt,  is  unsuccessful  in  finding  Bottomly's  goods      -  -  195 

Wasson  to  Hoyt,  says  he  and  J.  M.  Read  could  find  no  goods     -  195 

Wasson  to  Hoyt,  visits  Baltimore  and  sees  letter  from  Lawrence,  of  Boston, 

recommending  the  seizure  of  all  the  goods  of  the  Yorkshireraen  -  195 
Hoyt  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  giving  an  account  of  his  seizures,  says 

he  is  not  supported  by  the  press                      ,                    -  -  -  199 

Gives  list  of  seizures    ------  202 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  giving  notice  as  to  woollens        -  204 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  mention's  the  arrival  of  the  Tirginia  with  large  cargo  of 

woollens,  aud  recommending  Cairns       -  204 


INDEX. 


vii 


Pase. 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  an  increase  of  officers  -  205 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  mentioning  the  absence  of  officers  at  Boston,  and  makes 

reforms  in  the  appraiser;;'  department       -  205 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  tells  him  to  call  on  Lawrence  &  Stone  to  procure  the  attend- 
ance of  Kendall       -  -  -  -  -  20G 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  "in  logic,  two  negatives  make  an  affirmative,  and,  by  a 

parity  of  reasoning,  a  combination  of  two  free  articles  make  a  dutiable  one"  206 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  "  Cairns  will  explain  the  case  as  we  understand  it"  -  207 

Hoyt  to  Birchard,  on  the  subject  of  seizures  -  207 

Hoyt  to  Birchard,  announcing  his  defeat  in  a  trial  of  a  seizure  case,  of  four 

pieces     -------  208 

Birchard  to  Hoyt,  requesting  information  as  to  the  mode  of  procedure  in 

seizing,  with  a  fair  prospect  of  success     -  2Q8 
Hoyt  to  Birchard,  pointing  out  the  mode  of  selecting  juries  ;  objects  to  jurors 
from  the  mercantile  classes ;  and  asks  that  instructions  may  be  given  on 
the  other  subjects  referred  to    -  -  -  -  -  209 

M.  Birchard  to  A.  J.  Bleecker,  directing  him  how  to  pack  juries  -  -   210,  21 1 

Butler  to  Hoyt,  on  an  illegal  seizure  made  by  him  ;  gives  up  the  goods,  but 

makes  claimant  pay  cost         -  -  -  -  -212 

Poindexter  and  Kelly  to  Ewing,  relative  to  compromises  -  -  213 

C.  Penrose,  Solicitor,  to  T.  Ewing,  giving  particulars  of  compromises        -  213 
Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  giving  notice  of  discontinuance  of  suits  and  compromises    ~  215 
Gilpin  to  Butler,  calling  for  the  particulars  in  each  case  of  compromise        -  SIC 
Butler's  reply  to  the  same  -  -  -  -  -  217 

Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  announcing  settlement  of  suits  against  Henry  Dixon,  James 

Bottomley,  and  John  Taylor,  jr.  -  218 

Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  announcing  the  settlement  as  "  picking  so  much  literally 

out  of  the  fire"        ------  219 

Butler  to  Gilpin,  giving  an  account  of  the  compromises  -  -  220 

Gilpin  to  Butler,  directing  no  more  compromises  without  the  sanction  of  the 

Department  -  -  -  -  -  -221 

Gilpin  to  Butler,  asking  for  a  full  history  of  the  compromise  cases  -  223 

Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  furnishing  a  full  account  of  the  compromise  cases;  reasons 
for  compromising ;  makes  provision  for  officers  of  the  Government ;  received 
more  money  "  out  of  court  than  he  could  in  ;  "  "  distrusts  judicial  adjust- 
ments"   -  -  -  -  -  -  223 

sundry,  of  Hoyt  to  Butler,  directing  arrests  -  226,  227 

Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  reporting  progress  of  settlement  in  compromise  cases  -  229 

Butler  to  Gilpin,  giving  account  of  the  suit  against  Lachaise  &  Fouehe      -  332 
J.  Hoyt,  Decasse,  Miege,  &  Co.,  and  others,  on  the  subject  of  goods  seized 

in  their  store  -----  233  to  241 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  a  bond  under  the  sub-Treasury  act; 
bond  recited — Hoyt's  objections  to ;  new  bond  required,  but  not  in  addi- 
tion ;  Hoyt  thinks  a  new  bond  of  him  is  contrary  to  public  expectation, 
but  the  measure  is  proper,  for  the  receiver  general  is  afraid  the  "  just 
expectations  of  the  people  will  be  disappointed,"  if  receivers  general  are 
confounded  with  collectors       -  241 
and  argument  of  Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  carrying  out  the  sub- 
Treasury  act  ------  -  245 

Gilpin  to  Woodbury,  deciding  against  Hoyt's  opinion,  and  requiring  a  new 

bond       -  -  -  -  -  -  249 

Hoyt,  enclosing  Mr.  Fleming's  letter  as  to  mode  of  keeping  accounts  -  250 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  expressing  regret  that  Hoyt  cannot  allow  him  to  draw 

for  balance  of  money  on  hand  -  250 

Cairns,  William,  to  T.  Ewing,  requesting  to  be  appointed  appraiser,  and 

enclosing  recommendation  of  merchants   -  -  -  -  251 

Wasson  to  Hon.  Abbott  Lawrence,  on  the  subject  of  appraisements  -  251 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  asking  out  of  what  fund  the  furniture  of  the  new  custom- 
house should  be  paid  -  253 
Hoyt,  on  the  same  subject,  suggesting  to  ask  an  appropriation  of  Congress  -  253 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  requesting  a  detailed  statement  to  be  laid  before  the 

committee  -  -  -  -  254 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  enclosing  letter  of  Horspool         -  -  254 

E.  Curtis  to  W,  Forward,  relative  to  increased  expenses  of  New  York  cus- 
tom-house -  255 


viii 


INDEX, 


Page. 

Letter  of  George  Poindexter  to  the  President,  (see  George  Poindexter)     -  -  264  to  297 

the  President  to  George  Poindexter,  (see  President)    -  292  to  297 

Walter  Forward,  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  to  George  Poindexter,  (see 

Walter  Forward)    -  266  to  289 

Jesse  Hoyt,  William  M.  Price,  J.  M.  Read,  and  Samuel  D.  Patterson,  rela- 
tive to  the  seizure  of  the  goods  of  Decasse,  Miege,  <&  Co.       -  -  301  to  320 
same  and  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  relative  to  Bottomly's  goods           -  321  to  336 
F.  B.  Ogden,  relative  to  the  examination  of  witnesses  in  England              -  337 
Hoyt  to  Bancroft,  demanding  the  proceeds  of  Bottomly's  goods    -  -  337 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  the  "protest  fund,"  assigning  reasons  for  not 
leplying earlier ;  says  it  is  "contrary  to  the  theory  of  the  Government  to 
consider  money  unsafe  in  his  hands        -  337 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  sending  him  a  copy  of  Solicitor's  reply  in  relation  to  the 

"protest  fund"       -  -  -  -  -  -  338 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  promising  to  write  a  forma!  letter  suggesting  the  reply 
Mr.  Woodbuty  is  to  make  ;  and  has  "  no  doubt  you  will  write  such  a  let- 
ter as  I  shall  suggest"  -  339 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  the  expenses  of  prosecution  against  him  for 

money  paid  under  protest        -  339 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  giving  notice  that  he  has  employed  B.  F.  Butler  to  de- 
fend these  suits  ;  asks  permission  to  pay  him  counsel  fee  out  of  the  public 
funds      -  -  -  -  -  -  341 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  says  there  is  no  appropriation  to  pay  counsel  fees  to  Mr. 

Butler,  but  thinks  Congress  will  modify  the  law  to  meet  the  case  -  341 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  says  if  the  Government  does  not  pay,  he  will  let  the 

suits  go  by  default  ;  thinks  no  one  will  charge  less  than  Mr.  Butler  -  341 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  allows  him  to  pay  any  other  counsel,  but  not  Mr.  Butler  342 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  enclosing  a  newspaper  containing  a  calumny  as  to  his 

being  a  defaulter  -  -  -  -  -  312 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  stating  that  he  knows  of  no  fact  justifying  the  suspicion 

that  he  is  a  defaulter  -  343 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  refunding  duties  not  paid  under  protest        -  343 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  cannot  execute  the  laws  as  he  understands  them  ;  his  view 
of  Government  defined — "  the  people  acting  through  their  representatives  ;" 
thinks  the  merchants  uncharitable  to  believe  that  he  put  a  certain  con- 
struction on  the  tariff  that  he  may  hold  the  money  in  his  own  hands  paid 
under  protest  ------  344 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  directing  him  todeposite  §200,000  in  the  Bank  of  Araeri- 

ica  -  -  -  -  -  344 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  in  reply,  on  the  same  subject  -  ~  345 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  and  Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  on  the  subject  of  the  protest 

fund       -  -  -  -  -  -  -  346  to  349 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  increased  pay  to  some  of  his  officers  ; 

wishes  an  article  published  in  the  Globe  -  349 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  wishes  the  pay  of  Mr.  Fleming  increased      •  -  351 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  in  answer  to  the  foregoing  -   -       y  353 

Hoyt  to  Wroodbury,  recommending  increased  pay  to  Wasson  and  Wetmore  - 

Wasson  renders  important  services  in  watching  suspected  persons  -  353 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  appointing  Wasson  and  Wetmore  clerks  in  the 

appraisers'  department  -  353 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  the  appointment  of  measurers       -  .    -  353 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  recommending  the  appointment  of  Cairns      -  -  357 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  cautioning  him  against  calling  the  regular  appraisers  when 

he  can  avoid  it  -  -  -  -  357 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  on  the  same  subject  -  -  .  -  357 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  the  increase  of  custom-house  offices  -  358 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  on  the  subject  of  bonds  of  Gibson,  Post,  &  Gibson  -  359 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  the  expenses  at  the  port  of  New  York  -  359 
C.  W.  Dayton  to  Jesse  Hoyt,  on  the  subject  of  the  return  of  John  Taylor,  jr.  360 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  giving  reasons  why  suit  with  John  Taylor,  jr.,  should 


be  settled               -             -              -              -              -  -  361 

Hoyt  to  N.  Williams,  on  the  subject  of  seizures  in  Baltimore ;  Cairns  and 

Wasson  will  go  on  and  look  after  them    -              -              =  361 

Hoyt  to  N.  Williams,  on  the  subject  of  John  Taylor's  goods       -  -  363 


INDEX.  ix 

Fage. 

Letter  of  Hoyt  to  N.  Williams,  directing  bun  not  to  allow  William  Bottomly  to  be 

present  at  an  appraisement      -              -              -              -  363 

J.  Hoyt  to  the  Treasurer  of  the  United  States             -  365 

Wm.  B.  Randolph  to  Jesse  Hoyt               -  366 

Hoyt  to  Wm.  B.  Randolph  ...  366 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  enclosing  a  letter  from  a  f  Democrat,"  on  the  subject  of 

the  sale  of  goods  damaged  by  fire            -  368 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  in  answer  to  the  foregoing,  giving  an  account  of  the  fire 

in  answer  to  a  "  Democrat"     -----  369 

Hoyt  to  B.  F.  Butler,  relative  to  the  case  of  Wood,  Johnson,  &  Burritt      -  370 

Hoyt  to  J.  Cadwalader,  disappointed  in  the  decision  of  Judge  Heath  -  370 
Hoyt  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  relative  to  the  appointment  of 

Cairns  as  appraiser  -  -  -  -  -  (  370 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  his  forfeiture  account  -  -  37L 
Hoyt,  relative  to  Cairns  going  to  Baltimore,  suggesting  that  the  calendar  of 

the  court  should  be  arranged  to  meet  this  contingency  -  -  372 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  informing  him  that  no  expense  can  be  incurred  in  fur- 
nishing the  New  York  custom-house  without  an  appropriation  -  373 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  the  goods  saved  from  the  fire  in  Front  street  -  373 
Hoyt  to  N.  Williams,  relative  to  seizure  cases  before  the  Supreme  Court  -  376 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  thefts  of  goods  in  the  public  store  -  -  375 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  resigning  his  office       .              _              .              _  377 

M. 

Manufacturers,  domestic;  understanding  between  them  and  Hoyt              -              -  44 

their  control  over  commerce               -              -              -              -  44 

their  standard  of  value       -----  44. 

their  interference  illegal      -----  45 

their  proceedings  in  1829    -              -                         •    -              -  45 

cease  to  interfere  for  a  time                             -  46 

combination  of  -              -              -              -              -              -  51 

their  statement  of  facts  as  to  their  attempts  to  procure  an  appraiser      -  55 

Mead,  A.  B.,  principal  appraiser;  his  testimony  as  to  Cairns     -                          '    -  67 

his  testimony  as  to  frauds  in  woollens    -              -  89 

Merchants  uncharitable  towards  Mr.  Hoyt  -----              -  343 

North  American  Trust  and  Banking  Company,  Hoyt's  speculations  in  stock  of         -  121 

' 'o. 

.  ■  ~\\  ,  ■    ■  . c  'it 

Oakley,  J.  M.,  custom  house  officer,  offers  goods  saved  from  fire  in  Front  street  for  sale  34 

Officer^  of  the  customs  taxed  for  election  purposes      -              -              -              -  16 

number  of,  in  New  York  from  1829  to  1842  25 

frauds  committed  by,  in  the  sale  of  goods.              -              -  34 

subject  to  Hoyt       -                            -              -              -  39 

number  of,  employed  from  1825  to  1841  -                             -  170 

Ogden,  F.  B letter  of,  to  Jesse  Hoyt  relative  to  examinations  in  England  336 


Potndexter,  G.,  reports  as  chairman  4 

does  not  concur  with  Kelly  &  Stewart            -  4 

receives  instructions  relative  to  examining  the  acts  of  E.  Curtis       -  160 

his  letter  to  Secretary  of  Treasury,  transmitting  report      -              -  194 

letter  of,  on  the  same  subject,  to  the  President  -              -              -  194 

letter  of,  to  Secretary  of  Treasury,  on  removal  of  Bleecker  -  264 
letter  of,  to  Walter  Forward,  on  the  subject  of  Bleecker's  removal  and 

employment  of  Dwight  -----  266 

letter  of,  to  John  Tyler,  relative  to  G.  A.  Dwight  -  -  269 
letter  of  W.  Forward  to,  directing  commissioners  not  to  examine  the 

affairs  of  the  present  collector,  (Curtis)         -  271 

letter  of,  to  Secretary  of  Treasury     -  273 

retires  from  the  commission  -  276 
2 


X 


INDEX. 


Page 

Poindexter,  G.,  his  reasons  for  retiring      -----  276 

letter  of,  to  John  Tyler,  on  the  subject  of  Hoyt's  correspondence      -  282 

charges  E.  Curtis  with  falsehood      -  283 

letter  of,  to  Secretary  of  Treasury     -  284 

letter  of,  to  John  Tyler     -----  286 

letter  of,  to  Secretary  of  Treasury     -  288 

his  letter  to  Secretary  of  Treasury     -  288 

his  letter  to  Secretary  of  Treasury,  on  the  subject  of  Hoyt's  books     -  389 

to  Secretary  of  Treasury,  declining  to  confer  with  Colonel  Stone     -  291 

to  the  same,  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  books              -              -  292 

to  John  Tyler,  announcing  his  return              -              -              -  293 

letter  of,  to  the  President  -             -                           -             -  294 

to  the  same      ------  296 

to  Secretary  of  Treasury,  relative  to  papers  of  commissioners           -  207 

Phillips,  J.  D.,  testifies  as  to  fire  in  Front  street  34 

as  to  sale  of  goods  in  "nine  months'  sale"  39 

Piatt,  J.,  is  recommended  by  Hoyt  to  run  away,  and  refuses  to  go            -              -  96 

President  of  the  U.  S.  gives  guaranty  that  officers  shall  not  be  removed  for  testifying  -  176 
letter  to,  from  G.  Poindexter,  relative  to  the  conduct  of  E.  Curtis,  and  the 

employment  of  G.  A.  Dwight                -  269 

directs  the  commissioners  not  to  examine  the  affairs  of  the  present  collector  -  271 

letter  of  G.  Poindexter  to                         -              -              ...  275 

G.  Poindexter  to,  on  the  subject  of  Hoyt's  correspondence          -              -  282 

his  letter  to  Poindexter             -             -             -             -             -  293 

letter  from  Poindexter  to  295 

letter  of,  to  G.'  Poindexter,  denying  Congress  any  right  to  the  report         -  296 

letter  to,  from  Poindexter,  relative  to  report               -  291 

letter  from  Poindexter,  in  reply  to             -  296 

R. 

Revenue,  amount  of,  collected  from  1829  to  1810                     -             -  25 

expense  of  collecting  ------  25,  26 

decrease  of,  caused  by  Collector  Hoyt         -              -              -              -  119 

collection  of              -             -             -             -             -  169 

increased  expense  in  collecting  of,  by  Curtis               -              -              -  169 

table  of  amount  of      -  170 

expense  in  collecting  of,  under  Thompson,  Swartwout,  and  Curtis             -  172  . 

excess  of  expense  of  collecting,  under  Curtis              -              -              -  172 

Remscn,  P.  V.,  bargains  with  G.  Curtis  to  hold  his  office         -              -              -  158 

Riell,  H.  E.,  required  by  E.  Curtis  to  pay  note  as  a  condition  of  remaining  in  office  -  156 

his  bargain  with  Curtis         -              -              -  156 

letter  of              -              -              -              -              -  157 

Robinson,  J.,  appraises  the  cargo  of  the  Independence  58 

finds  no  evidence  of  fraud     -              -                    •                      -  58 

his  character        -             -             -             -                           •  60 

s. 

Stanly,  Hon.  E.,  reports  from  committee   -----  1 

Solicitor  of  the  Treasury  orders  juries  to  be  packed     -              -              -  93 

his  correspondence  with  Hoyt  on  subject  of  compromises              -              -  98 

Secretary  of  Treasury  called  on  to  send  report  1 

directs  collector  to  furnish  aid  to  commissioners          -             -             -  J  38 

advises  E.  Curtis  as  to  mode  of  purchasing  stationery  -             -             -  148 

Stationery,  tabular  statement  of  frauds  in    -             -             -             -             -  9 

of  whom  purchased  -             -             -             -             -  10 

comparative  prices  of              -             -             -             -  1 1 

apportioned  among  different  officers         -              -              -              -  12 

table  of,  under  Collectors  Hoyt  and  Curtis             -             .             -  13 

table  of,  for  one  quarter           -             -             -             -             -  14 

expenditures  for,  from  1829  to  1811        -             -             -             -  24 

E.  Curtis  i  his  bills  of             -             -             -             -  144 

bills  of  T.  and  J.  Waite          -             -             -             -  141 


INDEX.  xi 

Page. 

Stationery,  statement  of  David  Felt  relative  to                        -  -  -  145 

comparative  prices  of              -             -              -  -  145 

Steel  pens,  qualities  and  prices  of  1 5 

Staten  island,  frauds  in  stationery  supplied  at            -              -  -  -  19 

1  Stores,  public,  hired  by  Jesse  Hoyt,  on  his  own  account,  illegally  -  -  27 

laws  on  the  subject  of                       -              -  -  -  27 

in  Nassau  street,  rent  of                    -              -  -  28 

other,  expense  of  29 

Storage,  laws  relative  to                           -              -              -  -  27 

frauds  of  Hoyt  in                        -              -              -                       .     -  30 

on  goods  in  Front  ftreet              -----  32 

"  Standard  of  value"  for  goods   -  44 

Sale  of  offices;  case  of  H.  E.  Riell            -              -              -  -  156 

of  office* to  P.  V.  Remsen                 -              -              -  -  158 

Curtis  denies  any  improper  motive  in  such         -  159 

of  office  to  J.  Whitaker,  and  the  price  of                         -  -  255 

Schenck,  P.  H.,  his  interference  with  the  custom-house  45 

is  silenced        -              -              -              -  -  -  46 

Stone,  W.  W.,  testimony  of,  quoted         -              -              -  -  -  47 

knows  of  no  frauds          -----  43 

pays  expenses  of  Wasson  and  Bleecker  50 

calls  Hoyt  to  account  for  the  compromises         -  -  -  101 

Hoyt  apologizes  to           -  101 

his  interview  with  Hoyt  at  Astor  House            -  -  -  101 

prefers  Curtis  as  collector  -              -              -  -  134 

his  visit  to  Washington     -              -              -  -  135 

his  interview  with  Cairns  -              -              -  -  -  135 

urges  the  retaining  of  Cairns  and  Wasson  in  office  -  -  135 

his  motives       -              -              -              -  -  -  136 

Seizure  of  Bottomly's  goods  at  Boston       -----  49 

history  of  trial  of                          -              -              -  -  -  50 

Seizures,  amount  of,  by  Hoyt,  in  one  month  73 

in  1839  prove  abortive                -              -              "  -  63 

in  Philadelphia  and  Baltimore     -              -              -  77 

history  of    -              -              -              -              -  -  75 

of  different  character  of  goods      -----  79 

indiscriminately  made  ------  70 

legality  of,  questionable  82 

Chancellor  Kent's  opinion  of  the  legality  of  -              -  -  -  87 

effect  of      -             -             -                            -  -  118 

how  to  be  made          ------  186 

Stocks,  transactions  of  J.  Hoyt  -              -                             -  121 

transactions  of  J.  Warren  in,  on  account  of  Hoyt          -  120 

transactions  of  W.  G.  Buckner  and  others  in                -  121 

Sub-Treasury  act,  its  effect  on  Collector  Hoyt            -              -  -  127 

Swartwout,  testimony  of           -              -              -  -  -  131 

settlement  of  his  accounts  recommended  by  commissioners  -  -  132 

Smith,  A.  H.,  his  testimony  ^quoted           -              -              -  -  -  134 

Supreme  Court  of  U.  S.,  decision  of,  destructive  of  commerce    -  -           '  -  JS9 

case  in,  cited     -             -             -             -  -  -190 

T. 

Taylor,  J.  J.,  jr.  ;  his  testimony  quoted      -              -              -  -  -  ^  36 

Teackle,  St.  G.  W.,  his  statement  of  trials  in  Baltimore            -  -  -  52 

Tariff  of  duties,  suggestions  relative  to       -              -              -  -  187 

Theory  of  Government  expounded  by  J.  Hoyt           -  337 


Valuation,  home,  difficulties  of  -  -  -  -  -  192 


Xll 


INDEX. 


W. 


Fage. 


Wasson,  G.  A.,  (storekeeper ,)  his  fraud*  in  cartage  and  labor;  factotum  of  J.  Hoyt  6 

used  by  Hoyt  to  seize  goods  y 

compensation  paid  to,  therefor  y 

fraud  committed  by,  in  stealing  goods  from  public  store  8 

informs  Mr.  Curtis  of  his  frauds  9 

his  stationery  account      -----  29 

his  connexion  with  Samuel  Lawrence  48 

.his  conduct  in  seizing  goods,  and  salary  increased            -  -  61 

his  crusades  to  other  cities  to  seize  goods          -              -  -  61 

standing  witness  of  Hoyt  66 

removed  by  Curtis           -              .              -              -  yo 

Wetmore,  S.,  (deputy  collector;)  his  testimony  quoted             -  *  23 

Woollens  consumed  in  Front  street           _____  33 

amount  of  consumption  of          -              -              -               -  -  36 

charges  and  expenses  on  goods  saved          -  35 

seized  in  Philadelphia  reappraised  88 

Warehousing  system  recommended                          -              -              -  -  183 

to  be  extended  to  the  Northern  frontier-              _              -  -  184 

Wood,  S.  R.  ;  his  case  -          -              -              -              -              -  -71 

Witnesses  to  be  furnished  by  Lawrence  &  Stone       -              -              _  y5 

Wells,  G.  W.,  appointed  by  Ewing  &  Kelly            -              -              -  -  265 

Wrigley,  J.  ;  his  case  stated       -                            -              -              -  -  79 

Woodbury,  L.  ;  his  letter  to  J.  Hoyt,  (see  Letters,)  calling  on  him  to  furnish  a  list 

of  moneys  paid  under  protest  -              -              -              -              -  33s 

Waite,  J.  and  T.  G.,  bills  of  stationery  of  -              -              -              -  -  146 

Wilson,  L.,  examination  of,  relative  to  sale  of  offices  in  New  York  custom-house       -  254 

Whitaker,  J.,  buys  an  office  of  Geo.  Curtis,  in  New  York  custom-house    -  -  255 

Webster,  Daniel ;  his  influence  exerted  with  Secretary  of  Treasury            -  -  269 

Winant,  J.  M.,  examination  of,  relative  to  iron  work                -  257 

Y. 

Yorkshire  men  threatened  by  Hoyt            -  96 

recommended  by  Hoyt  (0  run  away  96 


» 


INDEX   TO  APPENDIX. 


Rep.  No.  669.    Part  11. 


Page, 

Letter  of  J-  Hoyt  to  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  relative  to  a  barge  at  Jersey  City  and 

a  secret  inspector     ------  379 

L.  Woodbury,  in  reply,  declining              -  379 

Hoyt,  requesting  an  appropriation  for  custom-house  officers        -              -  380 

Hoyt  to  the  appraisers,  requesting  them  to  send  the  invoices  to  him            -  380 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  dismissing  a  number  of  officers,  and  asking 

power  to  appoint  additional  ones            -              -             -              -  381 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  weights  and  gauges          -              -  381 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  on  the  subject  of  the  employment  of  inspectors,  and 
giving  views  of  the  law  of  appointment ;  requiring  Hoyt  to  give  his  reasons 

for  removals           -              -             -             -              -  382 

Hoyt,  in  reply,  declining  to  make  any  confidential  communication  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  threatening  to  resign  if  he  is  obliged  to  give  reasons ;  the  Secre- 
tary has  no  more  right  to  ask  them  than  the  Senate  have  to  ask  the  Pres- 
ident      -------  383 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  advising  him  of  certain  seizures           *                    -  384 
Hoyt  to  Price,  on  the  same  subject  -                                                     -   384,  385 
Hoyt  to  J.  M.  Read,  Philadelphia,  and  N.  Williams,  of  Baltimore,  requesting 

them  to  search  for  Bottomry's  goods        -  386 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  appointments              -  387 

Hoyt  to  La  Chaise  &  Fouche     -  387 

Hoyt  to  John  M.  Read,  on  the  subject  of  seizures       -  387 
J.  M.  Read  and  N.  Williams,  on  the  same  subject      -                               387,  388 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  appointments             -  389 

Hoyt  to  N.  Williams,  on  seizures              -  390 

Hoyt  to  J.  M.  Read  and  S.  D.  Patterson,  on  seizures  -              -              -  390 
Hoyt  to  George  Bancroft,  asking  upon  whose  information  certain  goods  in 

Boston  were  seized                -  390 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  appointments              -  390 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  in  reply       -              -              -              -              -  392 

George  Bancroft  to  Hoyt,  declining  to  give  information  respecting  seizures  -  392 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  on  seizures  -----  393 

S.  I).  Patterson,  noticing  certain  seizures    -  393 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  power  of  appointment       -             -             -  394 

Hoyt  to  S.  D.  Patterson,  on  the  subject  of  seizures      -             -             -  396 
Hoyt  to  George  Bancroft,  on  the  subject  of  the  propriety  of  his  letter  asking 

certain  information                -  396 
L.  Woodbury,  enclosing  J.  N.  Barker's  decision  on  the  subject  of  the  duties 

on  linen                              -             -             -             -              -  397 

John  M.  Read  to  J.  Hoyt,  asking  information  as  to  the  names  of  vessel,  mas- 
ter, importer,  &c,  after  he  had  seized  certain  goods               -             -  397 
the  appraisers  to  La  Chaise  &  Fouche,  requiring  them  to  send  certain  goods 

to  the  public  store    ------  398 

Hoyt  to  Bancroft,  relative  to  the  conduct  of  clerks      -  398 
Hoyt  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  on  seizures  and  the  honor  of  the  mercantile  com- 
munity   -------  399 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury;  subject,  return  duties  on  linens,  payment  of  clerks       -  400 

Woodbury,  in  reply  to  the  foregoing          -             -             -             -  401 

Wm.  M.  Price,  on  the  appraisement  of  Bottomly's  goods          -             -  402 

Jesse  Miller ;  subject,  weighers'  and  gaugers'  fees       -  402 

Wm.  B.  Randolph  to  Hoyt,  on  the  mode  of  keeping  accounts     -             -  403 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  blank  books  ordered  by  Congress      -             -  404 

Hoyt  to  Price,  on  the  seizure  of  Bottomly's  goods       -  405 
3 


xiv 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Letter  of  Hoyt  to  the  collector  at  Newark,  N.  J.,  claiming  jurisdiction  over  Jersey 

City  405 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  appointments          -  405 

Woodbury,  in  reply,  suggesting  reductions  -  407 

Hoyt  to  Price,  enclosing  papers  in  Bottomly's  case      -  407 
Hoyt  to  P.  B.  Ogden,  Liverpool,  on  the  subject  of  frauds,  written  with  a 
view  "to  preserve  the  commercial  integrity  of  both  Great  Britain  and  the 

United  States"        -                            ...              .  409 

Hoyt  to  the  storekeeper,  consenting  to  the  examination  of  Leon's  goods       -  409 

Letter  and  answer  to  certain  merchants  on  the  duties  on  silks     -              -              -  411 

Letter  of  Wm.  S.  Coe  to  J.  Hoyt,  on  the  subject  of  Bottomly's  bond        -              -  411 

Hoyt  to  Price,  on  the  same  subject            -              -              -              -  411 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  the  revenue  cutter  service  -              -  412 
J.  Hoyt,  raising  the  salaries  of  certain  officers,  without  asking  the  authority 

of  the  Secretary  413 

Hoyt  to  H.  D.  Gilpin,  Bottomly's  bond     -  413 

Hoyt  to  Price,  directing  the  arrest  of  James  Campbell  -  414 

Hoyt  to  WTm.  H.  Ellis,  on  bank  bills         -  415 

Hoyt  to  Price,  directing  another  suit  against  S.  R.  Wood           -              -  414 
Hoyt  to  F.  B.  Ogden,  announcing  "  that  VVhiggery  in  this  country  was  very 

much  done  up"       -             -             -             -             -             -  415 

Hoyt  to  Price,  suit  against  S.  K.  Wood      -              -              -  416 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  Gebband  &  Co. 's  goods              -  416 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  complimenting  his  vigilance,  and  suggesting  the  dis- 
missal of  such  clerks  as  were  privy  to  Swartwout's  affairs — frauds,  &c.    -  417 
Hoyt  to  Ming,  liiell,  and  others,  Canadian  meeting  in  the  Bowery            -  418 
J.  Phillips,  resigning  his  situation  as  cashier             -             -             -  418 
Hoyt  to  Ferguson,  on  accounts  in  the  naval  office       -  419 
Hoyt  to  John  Forsyth,  enclosing  a  copy  of  his  letter  to  Ming,  Riell,  and 

others,  on  the  Canadian  meeting            -              -              -              -  419 

Hoyt  to  George  Bancroft,  sends  a  revenue  cutter  to  sea  to  protect  John  Van 

Buren,  "  second  son  of  Martin  Van  Buren"           -  419 
J.  Hopkins,  in  answer,  stating  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  Canadian 

meeting                -             -             -             -             -             -  419 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  announcing  the  appointment  of  Mr.  Waters  as  cashier, 

and  the  answer       -  420 

Hoyt  to  Andrew  Stevenson,  on  the  subject  of  the  tc  Canadian  reform  meeting"  421 
Walworth,  Ming,  and  Riell,  on  their  attendance  at  the  Canadian  reform 
meeting,  to  Hoyt,  informing  him  that  their  official  duties  "are  limited  to 
gauging  and  measuring  certain  articles  of  merchandise,"  and  their  opinions 


are  their  own          -  422 

Hoyt  to  Forsyth,  enclosing  copy  of  letter  to  Mr.  Stevenson         -              -  423 
Hoyt  to  C.  C.  Cambreling,  on  the  subject  of  the  mode  of  doing  business, 

keeping  accounts,  &c,  in  the  custom-house           -  423 

Hoyt  to  S.  Wright,  jr.,  and  E.  Curtis,  enclosing  copies  of  the  foregoing     -  428 

Hoyt  to  Woodbu  y,  places  $145,000  to  credit  of  Treasury         -              -  428 
Hoyt  to  William  M.  Price,  Coe  &  Craig  complain  of  delav  in  case  of  La 

Chaise  &  Fouche    ------  429 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relating  to  Price,  late  district  attorney         -              -  429 

Hoyt,  further  as  to  Price,  puts  $145,000  to  credit  of  Treasury    -              -  429 

Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  further  as  to  Price             -  430 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  rent  of  public  stores     -              -              -  431 

Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  more  as  to  Price                -  432 

Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  relating  to  seizures             -  432 

Hoyt  to  Woobury,  cases  of  seizure,  complains  of  Price             -              -  433 

Grundy,  Attorney  General,  to  Woodbury,  his  opinion  on  points  submitted  -  436 

Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  money  from  seizures          ...              -  436 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  sends  reports  of  Wasson  and  others    -              -  436 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  sends  copy  of  opinion  of  Attorney  General  -             -  437 


Read,  John  M.,  of  Philadelphia,  to  Hoyt,  cases  of  Bottomly  and  others     -  437 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  Bottomly's  case,  sends  memorandum  of  Bleecker  -  438 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  case  of  Joseph  Hopkins,  late  inspector  of  the  customs  -  438 
Fleming  to  Hoyt,  accounts  of  3d  quarter,  1838,  readv  for  transmission  to 

Treasury  ------  438 

Hoyt  to  Jesse  Miller,  transmits  accounts     -  -  -  -  439 


INDEX.  xv 

Pagf. 

Letter  of  Hoyt  to  Butler,  Bleeckers  claim                -              -              -              -  439 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  reports  divers  appointments  in  the  custom  house           -  440 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  confirms  the  above  appointments  -  441 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  inquires  as  to  money  on  hand       -  441 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  makes  certain  deposites  to  credit  of  Treasury              -  441 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  apprehended  frauds  on  the  revenue              -              -  442 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  same  subject                -  442 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  European  news  generally — has  not  read  Price's  letter, 

because  he  is  tired  of  '*  the  rogues  and  roguery"      -  443 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  the  matter  of  David  S.  Lyon       -  443 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  David  S.  Lyon  was  excluded  from  custom-house  becau.-e 

he  was  corrupt        ------  443 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  receipts  for  January,  1839,  and  other  matters             -  445 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  has  received  Treasury  circular  of  March  4,  1839         -  445 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  transmits  return  of  moneys  received  and  paid,  general 

matters  of  account  -  -  -  -  -  -446 

J.  Miller,  Auditor,  to  Hoyt,  returns  list  of  bonds  for  signature  of  naval 

officer                                 -             -              -             -              -  447 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  places  $200,000  to  credit  of  Treasury,  thinks  the  stand- 
ard of  value  of  woollens  too  low             -  448 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  has  found  the  bag  of  specie  supposed  to  be  taken  by  D. 

Si  Lyon                 -             -              -              -                            -  449 

Hoyt  to  George  Bancroft,  sends  sample  of  silk  goods  -  449 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  accounts  with  the  Treasury          -              -              -  449 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  custom-house  accounts                -              -              -  450 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  marker's  fees"              -              -              -              -  451 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  hopes  receipts  will  continue  to  be  liberal       -              -  451 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  custom-house  receipts  -  452 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  marker's  fees               -  452 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  hardware  of  Louis  &  Meir  seized        -  452 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  custom-house  nominations           -              -              -  453 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  approval  of  nominations,  concurs  in  proposed  increase  of 

pay  454 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  power  of  appointing  inspectors,  claims  that  he  i< 

right  and  the  surveyor  wrong    -----  455 

^       Hoyt  to  Butler,  appraisement  of  Strasser's  pistols       -  457 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  enclosing  letter  of  J.  A.  Fleming,  auditor,  in  relation  lo 

the  collection  of  bonds  by  the  Bank  of  North  America            -              -  458 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  concurs  in  the  opinion  of  the  auditor            -              -  459 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  recommends  Barnum  Whipple  as  inspector  at  Albany  -  460 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  protest  fund,  custody  of  goods,  difficulty  with  the  mar- 
shal       -  460 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  appraisers'  fees            -  462 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  La  Chaise  &  Fouche         -  462 
Craig  &  Coe,  stipulation  to  repay  certain  moneys        -  463 
Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  announcing  the  acquittal  of  six  cases  of  German  silver       -  46H 
Hoyt  to  F.  B.  Ogden,  Wood's  case,  thinks  consuls  might  do  a  profitable 

business  by  informing  against  goods         -  463 
Hoyt  to  Lawrence  &  Stone,  "we  have  been  beaten  by  the  courts  and  jurors 
in  all  our  efforts  to  carry  out  what  we  thought  the  true  interpretation  of 

the  tariff"              ------  464 

Hoyt  to  Russell  &  Savage,  summons  as  appraisers      -              -              -  464 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  protest  fund                 -  465 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  in  reply       -----  466 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  Wood,  Johnson,  &  Burrit's  case        -  466 

Hoyt  to  the  appraisers,  exhorting  to  vigilance             -              -              -  467 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  Malis's  case — "  the  Messrs.  Lawrence  will  procure  sucn 

persons  to  come  here  and  testify"            -              -              -              -  467 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  pays  over  part  of  the  protest  fund               -              -  468 

H.  D.  Gilpin,  Dupiee's  case       -  469 

Butler  to  Hoyt,  relative  to  fees    -----  470 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  exports  of  specie,  "Brother  Bancroft  has  succeeded  in 

his  seizure  case"      ------  479 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  u  we  are  doing  well  in  the  woollens  way"    -              -  470 


XVI 


INDEX, 


Page 


Letter  of  Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  asking  his  opinion  on  law  question — "may  have  said  that 
the  principle  of  the  GGth  section  of  the  act  of  1799  might  be  of  doubtful 

policy"    -             -             -             -             -             -             -  470 

Hoyt  to  Gilpin,  does  an  unprofitable  business  in  seizures            -              -  472 

Gilpin  to  Hoyt,  " penalties  and  forfeitures"                -  472 
Butler  to  Hoyt,  wishes  him  not  to  cull  the  regular  appraisers  "  when  he  can 

avoid  it"                -  472 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  Navoit  &  Badois,  Wilson,  Hawksworth,  &  Moss's  case  473 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  "if  it  would  not  be  inoffensive  to  the  feelings  of  the  United 

States  officers,"  put  19  cases  into  one  suit               ...  473 

Barker  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  false  oaths                -  474 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  remission  of  the  proceeds  of  Strasser's  pistols  475 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  Blackburn's  case               -  475 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  "Wilson,  Hawksworth,  &  Moss's"  case           -              -  176 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  Wood's  case,  thanks  Hoyt  for  his  vigilance  in  detecting 

frauds      -------  477 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  protests  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  against 

extravagant  costs     -              -  477 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  objects  to  S.  H.  Aimly  as  commissioner,  and  nominates  Geo, 

Humphreys,  of  Manchester     -----  477 

F.B.  Ogden  to  Jesse  Hoyt,  expressing  his  gratification  for  being  informed 
that  he  is  entitled  to  a  certain  portion  of  the  seized  goods,  although  unex- 
pected     -------  478 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  Blackburn's  case  -----  478 

Hoyt  to  William  Seymour,  deputy  collector  at  Albany,  informing  him  that 

he  may  disregard  the  circular  from  the  Treasury  Department   -              -  479 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  Bank  of  United  States,  anticipates  great  troubles         -  479 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  takes  another  store       -  479 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  country  banks,  Bank  of  America,  Manhattan  Company  480 
collector  of  Philadelphia  to  Hoyt,  on  the  claim  to  the  proceeds  of  forfeited ' 

goods      ------  480 

Hoyt  to  Phillips,  demanding  the  balance  of  "error  fund"          -             -  480 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  seizure  of  China  ware;  costs  are  more  than  proceeds;  re- 
fuses to  pay  his  portion  except  by  protesting  against  such  results             -  481 
Hoyt  to  J.  Miller,  declining  to  furnish  information       _              -              -  482 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  appointing  more  night  officers      -  483 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  United  States  Bank  and  city  banks             -              -  483 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  U.  S.  Bank  ;  importance  to  New  York  to  preserve  its 

integrity ;  Mr.  Biddle's  opinion               -  484 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  Boston  banks;   "Government  should  throw  all  their 

strength  in  New  York  that  it  can"          -  485 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  exports  of  specie  ;  Boston  banks  ;  wishes  "  that  all  the  aid 

may  be  furnished  that  can  be"                -  485 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  deposites  $100,000  in  the  Manhattan  Bank  -              -  485 
Hoyt  to  C.  W.  Lawrence,  asking  an  explanation  in  writing  with  respect  to 

a  verbal  communication  on  his  bank  account           -              -              -  486 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  banks  of  New  York  and  Eastern  banks,  specie  pay- 
ments, &c.             ------  486 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  shipments  of  specie ;  distress  in  the  market  -  488 

Hoyt  to  E.  Kane,  navy  agent  at  Washington,  refusing  to  pay  draft            -  489 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  currency  ;  duty  of  the  Government              -  490 

F.  B.  Ogden  to  Hoyt,  on  woollen  frauds    -              -              -  490 

A.  B.  Mead  to  B.  F.  Butler,  on  the  testimony  in  the  glass  cases  491 
George  Wolfe  to  Hoyt,  on  the  distribution  of  proceeds  of  certain  seized 

goods      -  -  -  -  -  -  -491 

I.  Hoyt  to  Levi  Woodbury,  meeting  of  citizens  in  relation  to  the  banks      -  491 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury  on  the  same  subject       -  492 

Woodbury,  directing  deposites  in  the  Manhattan  Company         -  492 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  Phcenix  Bank,  Hartford,  endorse  Treasury  note  without 

recourse  -------  493 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  remonstrates  with  the  bank  for  their  conduct               -  493 

Hoyt  to  K.  Withers,  interest  on  the  protest  fund  ceases             -              -  493 

Hoyt  to  Wm.  S.  Coe,  landing  of  the  baggage  of  steam  ships     -             -  494 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  small  seizures         -              -              -              -  494 

Hoyt  to  J.  K.  Kane,  distribution  of  proceeds  of  seized  goods      -             -  495 


INDEX.  xvn 

Page. 

Letter  of  Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  advising  of  bonds  paid,  and  the  state  of  financial  affairs  495 

Gilpin  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  payment  of  judgment  and  costs  against  Hoyt  496 
F.  B.  Ogden,  consul  at  Liverpool,  on  the  seizures  of  goods  and  shipments 

from  Liverpool        -                           -             -              -             -  496 

Hoyt  to  Thomas  H.  Denison,  consul  at  Liverpool,  enclosing  memorandum  of 

goods      -  497 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  Harvey  &  Slagg's  case;  is  mortified  at  the  result              -  497 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  complaining  of  juries,  and  the  mode  of  selection         -  498 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  on  the  costs  of  suits  against  the  latter          -              -  499 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  no  man  by  the  name  of  Shaw  is  a  good  witness  -              -  499 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  transfers  money  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer  of  the 

United  States  499 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  same  subject              -  499 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  advising  further  deposites  in  the  Manhattan  Company  -  500 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  costs  and  fees  for  actions  against  the  former,  and  interest 

on  protest  fund        -             -             -             -              -  501 

Hoyt  to  J.  Miller,  sending  back  H.  Dixon's  goods       -  501 
John  A.  Fleming  to  J.  Hoyt,  E.  &  C.  G.  Feter's  bond             -              -  501 
Hoyt  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  admitting  erroneous  estimates     •    -  502 
Hoyt  to  Humphreys,  Cunliffe,  &  Chasburn,  on  the  subject  of  executing  com- 
missions in  England,  containing  a  list  of  the  11  Yorkshire  men"             -  503 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  Decasse,  Miege,  &  Co.      -  504 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  John  Piatt's  case              -  504 
Hoyt  to  the  appraisers,  French  blankets      -  505 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  depositing  money  in  the  Manhattan  Company            -  505 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  inquiring  of  him  whether  he  has  ever  been  accused  of  being 

a  defaulter                            -             -             -             -             -  505 

Butler  to  Hoyt,  in  reply  to  the  foregoing,  stating  that  he  has  no  instructions 

to  commence  suit  against  him  as  a  defaulter            -  506 
Hoyt  to  the  appraisers,  on  the  subject  of  appraisement               -              -      1  506 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  same  subject      -                             -              -  506 
J.  Hoyt  and  Fleming,  on  the  subject  of  naval  office,  and  the  mode  of  ac- 
counts    -             -             -             -             -              -'  507 

John  Taylor,  jr.,  to  J.  Hoyt,  enclosing  invoice          -              -              -  508 

Hoyt  to  O.  Titus,  on  the  subject  of  duty  on  worsted  goods         -              -  508 

J.  Hoyt  to  John  Tayior,  jr.,  in  reply — (see  page  508)              -              -  509 
J.  Hoyt  to  R.  B.  Rhett;  merchants,  as  jurors  and  witnesses,  make  the  laws?, 

and  not  Congress     -  509 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  Riddell's  cases    -----  509 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  public  stores,  and  appropriations  for  new  custom-house  510 

Hoyt  to  Birchard,  seizure  of  a  piano           -              -              -  511 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  Masters,  Markoe,  &  Co.'s  case  ;  treatment  of  the  Government 

officers  in  the  jury  room          -              -              -              -  511 

Hoyt  to  Levi  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  the  fire  in  Front  street             -  512 
Hoyt  to  E.  Lord,  on  security  for  his  bonds  -  513 
Hoyt  to  Levi  Woodbury,  Dorr  &  Co.'s  case  ;  combinations  amongst  im- 
porters    -       .      -                           -             -             -             -  513 

Hoyt  to  Wroodbury,  estimate  of  importations              -              -              -  514 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  refunding  duties          -  514 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  enclosing  bill  for  Congress,  usually  known  as  the  "bill 

of  abominations"     -             -             -                           -  514 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  adding  a  section  to  his  bill           -              -              -  515 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  respecting  the  cutter  "Rush"  and  the  light-house 

service                   ------  516 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  on  the  additional  section  to  his  bill      *       -              -  517 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  enclosing  a  confidential  letter  relative  to  a  shipment  of 

linens,  exhorting  to  vigilance  in  detecting  frauds      -  517 
Hoyt,  in  reply,  is  puzzled  to  know  what  frauds  can  be  committed  in  linens, 

as  they  are  free  goods              -              -              -              -              -  517 

Butler  to  Hoyt,  mentioning  the  receipt  of  a  letter  from  the  Solicitor  of  the 

Treasury,  on  the  subject  of  uniting  several  bonds  in  one  suit    -             -  518 

Hoyt  to  Samuel  Lawrence,  enclosing  sample  of  goods  -              -              -  518 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  urging  the  passage  of  his  bill  with  "little  discussion"  -  518 

Hoyt  to  R.  B.  Brown,  respecting  his  going  to  Philadelphia         -             -  519 

Hoyt  to  the  collector  of  Philadelphia,  subjects  certain  papers       -             -  519 


xviii  INDEX, 

Page 


Letter  of  James  Cooke  to  Hoyt,  respecting  samples  sent  to  Samuel  Lawrence           -  519 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  is  unwilling  to  go  on  with  suits  when  the  court  says  he 

has  no  defence        ------  520 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  trial  of  cloths  in  Philadelphia ;  hopes  to  get  a  verdict  be- 
fore Mr.  Adams's  bill  is  called  up  520 
Hoyt  to  Walter  Bowne,  in  relation  to  the  new  custom-house  ;  cannot  discover 
any  power  by  which  he  can  overrule  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ;  is  dis- 
gusted with  the  extravagant  and  useless  expenditure  in  the  whole  affair    -  521 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  Consul  Davy,  at  Leeds;  Walker  a  witness;  letter  from 
Judge  Hopkinson,  wishing  to  have  his  opinion  in  the  cloth  case  printed ; 
thinks  the  Judge  is  proud  of  the  performance          -              -              -  521 
Hoyt  to  Judge  Hopkinson,  on  the  same  subject          -              -              -  521 
Hoyt  to  Davy,  consul  at  Leeds ;  Walker  a  witness ;  the  seized  goods  in  Phil- 
adelphia -              -              -                                         -              -  622 

Hoyt  to  Thomas  Dennison,  consul  at  Bristol ;  Masters,  Markoe,  &  Co.'s  case  523 

Hoyt  to  F.  B.  Ogden,  stating  that  he  drew  Mr.  Adams's  bill  of  abominations  523 

Hoyt  to  JV.  Williams,  Baltimore  ;  seizures  in  that  city  -  523 

Hoyt  to  Hon.  James  Monroe,  on  Mr.  Adams's  bill      -  524 

John  M.  Reed,  relative  to  Samuel  Shaw's  seized  goods              -              -  525 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  same  subject      -  526 
Hoyt  to  Williams,  of  Baltimore ;  does  not  know  on  what  grounds  the  goods 

are  to  be  tried  which  he  has  seized          ...              -  527 

Hoyt  to  Cadwalader,  on  Shaw's  case          -  527 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  advising  of  suits  against  hiin  in  the  cases  of  Dorr  &  Co.  and 

McCall  &  Co.                       -             -              -              -              -  627 

Hoyt  to  N.  William?,  advising  the  departure  of  Wasson  ;  says  it  will  not  do 

to  have  goods  appraised  by  the  New  York  custom-house  officers              -  528 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  advising  of  suits  brought  against  hiin           -              -  528 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  and  answer  in  Telation  to  the  call  of  tbe  Committee  on 

Expenditures  in  relation  to  seizures         -  529 

Hoyt  to  Cadwalader,  on  seizures  of  Shaw's  goods       -              -              -  529 

Hoyt  to  Bancroft,  enclosing  Judge  Hopkinson's  opinion              -              -  530 

Hoyt  to  Silas  Wright,  Adams's  bill            -              -              -  530 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  Bowen  &  Adams's  case      -  531 

Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  marker's  pay              -              -              -              -  531 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  enclosing  Mead's  letter  -              -              -              -  532 

Hoyt  to  Bancroft,  claiming  half  the  proceeds  of  forfeited  goods    -              -  532 
Hoyt  to  George  Davis,  despatching  him  to  Boston,  to  obtain  papers  used  at 

Bottomly's  trial                     -             -              -              -              -  533 

Hoyt  to  collector  at  Boston,  and  others,  on  the  same  subject       -              -  533 
Hoyt  to  Silas  Wright,  "the  present  lariffhas  been  made  by  merchants,  and 

not  by  Congress"     ------  534 

Woodbury,  directing  him  to  pay  over  the  money;-  in  his  hands  to  the  receiver 

general     -              -             -              -              -              -  535 

Hoyt  to  John  M.  Reed,  enclosing  papers  relating  to  the  seizure  of  goods, 

Oakeys  &  Robinson,  claimants              -  535 

•  Hoyt  to  John  M.  Reed,  on  commissions  to  take  testimony  in  England         -  536 
Hoyt  to  Butler,  wishes  him  to  tax,  in  his  bill  of  costs,  moneys  expended  in 

England  -------  536 

Hoyt  to  A.  Davy,  consul  at  Leeds,  on  the  subject  of  verifying  invoices  -  537 
Hoyt  to  George  Bancroft,  collector  at  Boston,  on  the  distribution  of  proceeds 

of  Bottomly's  goods               -  537 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  announcing  the  payment,  to  the  receiver  general,  of  the 

balance  of  moneys  standing  to  the  credit  of  the  Treasurer         -              -  o38 

Hoyt  to  B.  F.  Butler,  Walker's  case  of  seizure           -  539 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  Blackburn's  case               -  539 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  subject  of  the  large  balance  of  money  in  his  hands  539 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  mode  o»  keeping  accounts            -              -              -  540 

Hoyt  to  Davy,  Walker's  case ;  thinks  Van  Buren  will  be  elected  -              -  541 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  dismissal  of  John  Frazee  -  -  -  542 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  communicating  resolution  of  Congress  as  to  the  kind  of 

money  received  at  the  custom-house        -  542 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  relative  to  furnishing  the  New  York  custom-house  -  542 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  communicating  answer  as  to  the  kind  of  money  received 

in  payment  at  the  New  York  custom-house            ...  544 


INDEX.  xix 

Page. 

Letter  of  Hoyt  to  Butler,  Levy's  case;  is  for  making  an  example  of  our  "brother 

Christian"              ......  547 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  suit  of  Armstrong,  duties  on  wool       -              -              -  547 

Hoyt  to  Walter  Bowne,  furnishing  new  custom-house              -              -  548 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  certified  checks,  Treasury  notes    ...  549 
Hoyt  to  Humphreys,  Cunliffe,  Chalwood,  &  Berg,  remitting  still  further  for 

services  in  England  ------  550 

Hoyt  to  N.  Williams  and  B.  C.  Howard,  refuses  to  pay  any  more  expenses 

in  the  case  of  Wood               -----  550 

Hoyt  to  Butler,  gunny  bags        -  551 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  Treasury  notes  and  custom-house  bonds      -             -  551 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  on  the  state  of  his  accounts ;  discovers  that  the  law  relat- 
ing to  emoluments  has  been  misunderstood — that  he  is  entitled  to  more  than 
he  has  previously  charged ;  refers  the  Department  to  Congress,  as  he  has 
done  before             -              -             -              -             -  -551 

Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  complains  of  merchants  making  discount  on  Treasury 

notes ;  cannot  estimate  weekly  receipts  and  payments              -              -  555 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  in  relation  to  Mr.  Fratee             -              -.           •  -  556 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  about  eccentric  figures  from  naval  office       -             -  560 
Woodbury  to  Hoyt,  reported  depredation  on  goods  in  public  stores             -  560 
Hoyt  to  Woodbury,  conflagration  of  public  store  ;  "  utterly  impossible  for  col- 
lector to  have  any  accurate  knowledge  of  the  mass  of  accounts"               -  560 
Hoyt  to  President,  resigning  his  office  in  conformity  to  suggestion  of  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury               -             -             -             -  561 

Hoyt  to  William  Elliott  Lee,  replying  to  inquiry  concerning  Mr..  Savage    -  561 


\ 


